Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Taunton Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [Lords],

As amended, to be considered upon Friday.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Chepping Wycombe) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Chepping Wycombe Corporation) Bill (by Order),

Third Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

FEDERAL STRUCTURE COMMITTEE.

Mr. FREEMAN: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now state the membership of the proposed Federal Structure Committee; the terms of reference, if any; and when it will be meeting?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): It is intended that the personnel of the Federal Structure Committee should be as before, with certain additions which I am not yet in a position to announce. As regards the other points raised by my hon. Friend, I would refer him to the answer I gave to two questions by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Ward-law-Milne) on Wednesday last.

BURMA.

Mr. FREEMAN: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can yet make any statement as to the carrying
on of the proposals of the Round Table Conference for the future government of Burma?

Mr. BENN: The matter is still under consideration.

Mr. FREEMAN: In view of the contrary opinions expressed on the advisory committee regarding the separation of Burma, will there be an opportunity of considering the whole matter at the Federal Structure Committee later on?

Mr. BENN: I hope to make a statement of the plans when they have matured.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any further statement about the causes of the present rebellion in Burma?

Mr. BENN: I have at present nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) on the 18th May. I hope shortly to make available to the House a more comprehensive statement on the origin and progress of the rebellion.

Earl WINTERTON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the operations in Burma against the rebels are under the control of the military or civil authority?

Mr. BENN: The statement which I circulated on the 2nd June shows that military and police forces are operating in conjunction, but under their own officers. The appointment of Mr. Booth Gravely as Special Commissioner in the five districts affected by the rebellion has secured unity of command over the civil forces, but is also de signed to secure unity of action between the civil and military forces.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Is the hunting down of these gangs of rebels still continuing, and are the Government satisfied with the rate of extermination of these armed and semi-armed bodies of persons?

BOMBAY GOVERNMENT (NEW MEMBER).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India from what station the official recently appointed as a new home member to the
Government of Bombay was transferred; and what was the reason of his promotion?

Mr. BENN: Mr. G. A. Thomas, who was recently appointed to be a member of the Executive Council of the Government of Bombay, on the recommendation of the Governor endorsed by the Governor-General, was previously Commissioner in Sind.

Sir A. KNOX: Is Mr. Thomas the official who was Commissioner of Sind on the date when a number of British officers and their wives were grossly insulted by being spat upon? Was that the reason for his promotion?

Mr. BENN: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member, on reflection, would desire to attack a distinguished public servant who is not in a position to defend himself.

CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRAINT ACT.

Miss RATHBONE: 4 and 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India (1) if he will report to the House what steps, if any, have been taken by the central and local Governments of India to carry out the steps recommended two years ago by the Joshi Committee as necessary to render effective the administration of the Sarda Child Marriage Restraint Act, namely, a wide publicity campaign aided by State funds; the keeping of marriage registers in a prescribed form with details of age, etc.; universal compulsory notification of marriages and births; the issue free of charge of certificates of birth and marriage to the parties concerned; the employment of women police, women jurors and assessors, and medical women in the investigation of sexual offences; and the provision of separate women's waiting rooms at all court houses;
(2) if he will state how many complaints of violation of the Sarda Act of Restraint of Child Marriage have been received and dealt with by the courts since the Act came into force on 1st April, 1930, distinguishing between cases prior to and those subsequent to the formal cessation of the campaign of civil disobedience?

Mr. BENN: Perhaps the House will forgive a somewhat long reply on this important matter. The Child Marriage
Restraint Act, generally known as the Sarda Act, which was enacted on 1st October, 1929, and came into operation on 1st April, 1930, makes it an offence punishable by fine or, in certain cases, by imprisonment or by both, to contract or arrange a marriage between persons either of whom is below the age of 18 in the case of the male and 14 in the case of the female. The Act further prescribes that to enable the appropriate court to take cognisance of an alleged offence under the Act, a complaint must be laid within 12 months of the solemnisation of the marriage in respect of which an offence is alleged. The actual inquiry into the complaint, if one is authorised by the court, is conducted by a magistrate.
I am informed that between the 1st April, 1930, when the Act came into force, and February of this year there were 29 prosecutions under the Act. I have no more recent information, but the number of prosecutions since February is probably very small if only for the reason that, as the House is no doubt aware, there are a number of private amending Bills which are either already before the Indian Legislature or of which notice has been given.
The Joshi Committee reported on 20th June, 1929, some months before the Sarda Bill was enacted in its final form, and its terms of reference were therefore framed without specific reference to that Act. Several of its recommendations, including those mentioned in Question No. 4, have been referred by the Government of India to local governments. Until the views of all of these have been received and considered the Government of India are not able to decide what further steps can be taken in regard to these recommendations.

Miss RATHBONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it has taken over three years to refer these administrative points to the Provincial Governments and get their replies thereon?

Mr. BENN: The hon. Lady will remember that the recommendations of the Committee were before the Legislature when the Act was enacted, and some of the recommendations were embodied or taken into consideration in framing the Act. As to others, it has been necessary
to seek information. It has been a long inquiry, but all the replies have not yet been received.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this matter is not pigeon-holed in view of its great importance, and will he ask the Government of India to report as to how soon they expect a reply from the Provincial Governments on this matter?

Mr. BENN: I have no doubt that they are using due expedition. The Noble Lord is well aware that what is important is to enlist the sympathy of Indian opinion behind this report.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it not most important that this should not become a dead letter in view of the appalling abuses which are going on in India in regard to this matter?

Miss RATHBONE: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall take the earliest convenient opportunity of raising this question on the Motion for the Adjournment.

RENTS, BARDOLI DISTRICT.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON -BROWN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the rents which are due in the Bardoli district have now been paid and the Irwin-Gandhi agreement carried out there; if not, how much is still owing; and what steps does he propose to take in the matter?

Mr. BENN: In order to be able to give the hon. and gallant Member the latest information, I telegraphed to the Government of India, but unfortunately I have not yet received a reply. If the hon. and gallant Member would be so good as to repeat his question next Monday, I hope to be able to give a full reply.

FOREIGN PIECE GOODS EXPORT COMPANY LIMITED.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the agency company that has been registered in India for the purpose of buying and exporting stocks of boycotted cloth is a private or public company; if the latter, whether the public in India are to be invited to subscribe capital and who are the directors?

Mr. REMER: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can state whether British cloth has actually been re-exported by the Foreign Piece Goods Export Company, Limited, from India; and, if so, will he state the quantity and to what countries this cloth has been re-exported?

Mr. BENN: The Company is a public company. No shares have so far been offered for public subscription. I am circulating a list of the directors. The company has not yet acquired any stocks for re-exportation.

Following are the directors:

Sir Ness Wadia and

Messrs. F. E. Dinshaw,

S. D. Saklatwala,

H. P. Mody,

Lalji Naranji,

Chimanlal G. Parekh,

Kasturbhai Lalbhai,

Ambalal Sarabhai,

Trikamlal Girdharlal,

Devidas H. Shah,

G. D. Birla,

Sakarlal Balabhai and

Shankar Lal Banker.

Mr. REMER: Are we to understand that no stocks have yet been exported at all?

Mr. BENN: As the company has not secured any stocks for exportation, the natural inference would be that no stocks have yet been re-exported.

Mr. REMER: In view of the importance of this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman keep the House fully informed as to what is happening?

Mr. BENN: I have given to the House repeatedly, in answer to questions, ah the information which I could secure, and of course I shall continue to do so.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say if the five lakhs have been subscribed?

Mr. BENN: Yes, I believe that the five lakhs referred to in my answer have been subscribed.

Mr. REMER: Have they been subscribed by the Bombay mill-owners?

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India
whether the delay in re-assembling the Bound Table Conference in this country is to be utilised to attempt further progress in India with the outstanding questions concerning the future of provincial governments; and, if so, what means are to be taken to assist in the settlement of such questions?

Mr. BENN: Though of course many details affecting Provincial Constitutions remain to be settled, I am not aware of any fundamental outstanding questions affecting all Provinces which require discussion except problems such as communal difficulties and relations between Centre and Provinces which are essentially involved in the federal as well as in provincial constitutions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the procedure of calling a series of Round Table Conferences in India been considered, and could the intervening months be utilised in that way?

Mr. BENN: There is a great deal of work in process in India at the present time in connection with the conference. I do not know that it would be wise to adopt the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that otherwise we shall be discussing federation without knowing what the federal units are going to consist of?

MR. GANDHI.

Mr. FREEMAN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether Mr. Gandhi has been invited to attend the Federal Structure Committee and/or the Round Table Conference which are meeting in September; and whether he has signified his acceptance of either or both?

Mr. BENN: No formal invitations have yet been issued.

Mr. FREEMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement in "Young India" last week, and, in view of the general invitation sent to the National Congress to participate—and the fact that they themselves have elected Mr. Gandhi to represent them—will he confirm that invitation at the earliest moment?

Mr. BENN: It is known to be the desire of the Government that Congress
should participate in the conference through its chosen representatives.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not the case that the invitations would be to the Congress and that it would be for them to choose a representative?

Mr. BENN: The invitations will be issued through the Viceroy and will be dealt with as before.

BRITISH COTTON GOODS (IMPORT DUTIES).

Sir GERALD HURST: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, before the resumption of the Round Table Conference, he will take steps to elicit the opinion of the Indian States as to the effect of the import duties on English cotton goods upon the prices and the available supplies of such goods within their territories?

Mr. BENN: Customs policy in its relation to Federation is a matter which can be raised at the resumed meetings of the Federal Structure Committee.

Sir G. HURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question and say whether he will take steps to elicit the opinion of the Indian States as to the effect of the import duties'?

Mr. BENN: I have said that, when the matter becomes relevant, and when we have a locus for making such inquiries, we shall do so, and that will be when the Federal Structure Committee meets.

Sir G. HURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this is an urgent and vital question and does not brook delay at all?

Mr. SANDHAM: Has the right hon. Gentleman made himself acquainted with the enormous profits that the Bombay mill-owners are making at the present time?

Sir G. HURST: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for India what is the value of cotton goods exported from the United Kingdom to India for the first five months of 1931; and how does such value compare with the corresponding figures for the first five months of 1929?

Mr. BENN: The figure for the first four months of 1931 is £1,983,000 as compared with £10,874,000 for the first four months of 1930.* The average price for this period of 1931 was some 25 per cent. lower than that for the corresponding
period of 1930.* The figures for May are not yet available.

Sir G. HURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which I put as to how such value compares with the corresponding figures for the first five months of 1929?

Mr. BENN: If the hon. and learned Member had done me the courtesy of listening to the answer which I have given, he would have heard that I have given the exact information for which he asked.

Sir G. HURST: Has the right hon. Gentleman not the values for 1929? I did not ask for the figures for 1930?

Mr. BENN: I do not know whether it is a misprint in my answer. If it is I apologise to the hon. and learned Member and I will put the matter right.

Sir G. HURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that those figures are passed on to those concerned in the Ardwick by-election?

Mr. BENN: I shall publish them.
[* "1930" in each case should read "1929."]

ARMY OFFICERS' TRAINING (COMMITTEE).

Major GRAHAM POLE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give information in regard to the personnel of the committee which has been set up to investigate the problems connected with the establishment of an Indian Sandhurst?

Mr. BENN: I am circulating the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the names:

Chairman: General Sir P. W. Chetwode, Bt., G.C.R., K.C.M.G., D.S.O., Commander-in-Chief in India.

Members:

Lieut.-General Sir K. Wigram, K.C.B., C.S.I., C.B.E., D.S.O., Chief of the General Staff.

Lieut.-General Sir C. N. Macmullen, K.C.B., C.M.G., C.I.E., D.S.O., Adjutant-General.

Lieut.-Colonel H. L. Haughton, C.I.E., Deputy Military Secretary, Army Headquarters.

Mr. G. M. Young, C.I.E., Secretary, Government of India, Army Department.

Sir George Anderson, C.I.E., Director of Public Instruction, Punjab.

Mr. S. N. Mukerji, Principal, St. Stephens College, Delhi.

Sir P. Sivaswami Aiyer, K.C.S.I., C.I.E.

Dr. B. S. Moonje.

Rai Bahadur Chaudhry Chhotu Ram.

Sir Abdur Rahim, K.C.S.I., M.L.A.

Captain Sher Muhammed Khan, M.L.A.

Lieutenant Narain Singh Bahadur.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir H. Gidney, M.L.A.

Khan Bahadur Mir Sharbat Khan, Political Agent, Chagai.

Major-General Rao Raja G. R. Rajwade (of Gwalior).

Colonel Lachhman Singh (of Patiala).

Colonel Kadirbeg (of Hyderabad).

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (DELEGATION).

Major POLE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is yet in a position to give information in regard to the personnel of the Indian Delegation to the forthcoming meeting of the League of Nations at Geneva?

Mr. BENN: I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet been able to consider the suggestion that the elective bodies in the Legislative Assembly should have a voice in the choice of representatives?

Mr. BENN: That suggestion has often been made, but it presents great difficulties.

AIRSHIP EQUIPMENT, KARACHI.

Major POLE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for India the total cost incurred by the Government of India in the erection of the mooring mast and other ground equipment in preparation for the flight of the R 101 at Karachi; what is the annual cost of the upkeep of the mast and other equipment; and whether he will give information concerning the attitude of the Government of India towards the future maintenance of the mast and equipment, in view of the recent statement by His Majesty's Government in regard to their future airship policy?

Mr. BENN: The original estimate of the cost of construction of the mooring tower was £55,000. The figure of actual
cost is not yet available, but I have heard that the estimate has been somewhat exceeded. The annual cost of maintaining the station, which is charged to the Air Ministry vote, is £3,600. The Government of India have been informed of the recent decision of His Majesty's Government regarding future airship policy, but I have not yet received their views as to future policy in India.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that we are paying the cost of upkeep?

Mr. BENN: I do not know whether an adjustment was made; it is borne on the Air Ministry Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that items on the Air Ministry Vote are frequently met by payments from other Departments or Governments—as, for example, in the case of Mesopotamia?

DISTURBANCES.

Mr. REMER: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many riots involving loss of life, damage to property, or injury to life have taken place in India during the present year; and how many lives have been lost in these riots?

Mr. BENN: There have been 22 riots since the beginning of the year. In one of these, which took place at Rangoon between the Chinese and Burmese communities, several persons were reported to have been killed, but I have not the exact figures. In the remaining 21 riots, a total of 349 persons are known to have been killed. Of this total, 294 deaths occurred in the communal riots at Cawnpore, and 37 during similar disturbances at Benares and Mirzapur.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to stop these riots taking place?

PRESS MESSAGES.

Mr. REMER: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for India if any censorship of Press messages to this country with reference to rioting in India or Burma is in existence, or has been in existence, during the present year?

Mr. BENN: The answer to both the questions asked is "No, Sir."

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a statement concerning the position of affairs in China; and if any progress has been made in connection with the negotiations in relation to extraterritoriality?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The negotiations between Sir Miles Lampson and Dr. Wang have reached a stage which enables them to be reported to both Governments. I am awaiting full information from Sir Miles Lampson, and I hope shortly to be in a position to make a statement to the House.

Sir K. WOOD: Arising out of the first part of my question, as to the condition of affairs in China, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the statement that some of these provinces are now in rebellion, and that a military Government has been formed at Canton?

Mr. HENDERSON: There has been an attempt to form a Government at Canton. I have not information on the other point. There has been no material change from the answer which I gave on Wednesday.

Mr. HANNON: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a statement on the action of the self-styled Government of Canton in directing the inspector-general of the Chinese Maritime Customs to transfer his headquarters to Canton; and what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government in this matter?

Mr. HENDERSON: His Majesty's Consul-General at Canton reports that a request of the nature described in the question was made, but that it has not been acceded to. A compromise arrangement regarding the Customs appears to have been reached, and I have asked His Majesty's Minister in China to supply me with the details.

Mr. HANNON: When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to have the details?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot always tell when I shall get a reply from Sir Miles Lampson. He has a lot of duties to attend to at present.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to get an early reply?

Mr. HENDERSON: I think the hon. Member will be sufficiently assiduous to keep me up to date.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA AND GERMANY (PROPOSED CUSTOMS UNION).

Sir K. WOOD: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a further statement concerning the Austro-German Customs Agreement?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Council of the League of Nations at its recent meeting unanimously agreed to refer to the Permanent Court of International Justice the question of the proposed Austro-German Customs Union for an advisory opinion.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the report is likely to be received?

Mr. HENDERSON: It is expected that we may be able to get an advisory opinion somewhere about August—certainly in time for the next meeting of the Council of the League.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is this the first time that the Court has been asked for an advisory opinion?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, not by any means.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now any further information as to the conditions of labour in Russian timber camps?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply of Wednesday last to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), to which I have nothing to add.

Captain MACDONALD: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report which was issued recently on conditions in timber camps, and is he satisfied that prison labour is used for this timber industry?

Mr. HENDERSON: That point was referred to in the answer to which I have just referred the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman personally satisfied with the conditions in these camps?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am very far from being satisfied with a good many things that are done.

PROPAGANDA.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the numerous articles which have recently appeared in the Russian official Press urging that assistance should be given to the revolutions in progress in India and in Spain, which are stated to be the two vital points at present in world revolution, and urging that the success of Communist plans in British India would deal a fatal blow to Great Britain and would spread revolution throughout Asia; whether these articles have been considered by the special committee set up last year to inquire into and advise the Foreign Secretary in this respect; what advice has been received from the committee; and whether, as the articles constitute a breach of the agreement, he will make a protest to the Soviet. Government or take other action in the matter?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The policy of His Majesty's Government on this question was stated by the Prime Minister in this House on the 18th May, and the hon. Member may rest assured that all the evidence available—and it is not restricted to Press articles such as those to which he refers—is subjected to constant examination by those competent to advise His Majesty's Government.

Sir W. DAVISON: What is the object of appointing this special committee, which the House was informed was dealing with these matters, if daily articles in the official Russian Press, containing propaganda hostile to this country, are allowed to continue?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not know that their appearing has anything to do with the appointment of the committee. The committee examined very carefully the evidence submitted by the Government and gave a report.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are the committee now discharged? Do not they deal with Press information any longer?

Mr. HENDERSON: The committee will be called together when I think the matter is of sufficient importance.

Mr. COCKS: Have any of those articles been articles attacking Mr. Gandhi?

CURRENCY REGULATIONS (BRITISH TRAVELLERS).

Mr. HASLAM: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that British nationals passing through Russia by the Siberian Railway have had their English currency confiscated at the rate of £1 a day, even in cases where they have not partaken of the fare provided under the currency regulations of 21st March last; and whether he has instructed His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow to protest against such charges, especially in cases where none of the food provided is used or required?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As I informed the House on Wednesday last, I am in correspondence with His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow on this subject; but I have not yet received his reply.

Mr. HASLAM: Has the right hon. Gentleman made no protest whatever against these unjust exactions on British travellers, and are we to understand that these robberies can continue?

DEBTS, CLAIMS, AND COUNTER-CLAIMS.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position in regard to the settlement of the Russian debts question?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on Tuesday last.

Sir H. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Could the right hon. Gentleman use his persuasive influence in order to facilitate these negotiations and come to a conclusion before the end of the world?

Mr. BECKETT: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to collect the debts owing to this country by certain American States?

BRITISH EMBASSY PLATE.

Captain CAZALET: 73.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the exact amount of silver plate which has been returned to the British Embassy in Leningrad by the Soviet Government; and how much more remains to be found in order to complete the service?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The articles of silver plate that have been traced and delivered to His Majesty's Embassy comprise a number of forks, knives, spoons, and ladles. The bulk of the service, however, comprising dishes, plates, candelabra, centre pieces and miscellaneous articles of plate, is still missing.

Captain CAZALET: Is there any hope of the other articles turning up?

Mr. LANSBURY: Hope springs eternal, you know.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Were not these articles discovered by a member of the British Embassy staff when he was dining out?

Mr. LANSBURY: I really do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Mr. HANNON: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make a statement to the House on the progress of the negotiations for a naval understanding between Italy and France?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have nothing to add to the reply which I returned on Wednesday last to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood).

Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when I may put down a question to which he will be able to give a definite answer?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, I am afraid I cannot. The matter does not rest with His Majesty's Government. There are two other Governments concerned. One of them, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has been passing through a very important election, that of the President of the French Republic, and that has affected the negotiations.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Did not the right hon. Gentleman, who now disclaims
all responsibility, try to claim all the gratification for what he called the success in regard to this matter?

Mr. HENDERSON: The hon. and gallant Member is not making an accurate statement when he says that I disclaim all responsibility. I never do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TRADE MISSIONS (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 32.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department which recommendations in the reports submitted by various oversea trade missions have been put into operation; and will he state specifically which are the trades that have adopted improved selling methods and which trades have materially reduced costs of production as a result of the reports?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): It is too soon yet to be able to say very much, but I understand that already several firms intend to re-organise their selling methods in South Africa; that steps are being taken to reduce packing costs; and that in at least two industries one or more groups for selling overseas have been formed, while in a third negotiations to this end are proceeding.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Will the hon. Gentleman use his best influence to see that the results of these trade missions are given effect to? We are continually asked for our selling conditions and costs, and it is only reasonable, when missions are appointed that their recommendations should be followed as far as possible. The hon. Gentleman can do a great deal to have these recommendations carried out.

Mr. GILLETT: The matter is receiving the constant attention of my Department.

INDIA.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 33.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has any recent information from his representatives in India regarding the effect of the boycott and picketing upon the export trade of this country?

Mr. GILLETT: The Department of Overseas Trade is in regular receipt of information from His Majesty's Trade Commissioners in India. It is impossible to estimate in terms of reduced imports into India from the United Kingdom the effect of the picketing and boycott.

Mr. HACKING: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is easier for merchants in India to import Lancashire cotton goods than it was two or three weeks ago

Mr. GILLETT: I must ask for notice of that question.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider having direct representatives of the Overseas Trade Department in India to watch Lancashire trade?

Mr. GILLETT: We have representatives already who are watching trade conditions all the time.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is there not a trade commission in India already?

RUSSIA.

Mr. HACKING: 34.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will state the total face value of contracts entered into between the Export Credits Department and the Soviet Republic during the last six months?

Mr. GILLETT: During the six months ended 30th May last, the Export Credits Guarantee Department entered into contracts covering credits for £2,534,891 in respect of exports to Russia.

Mr. HACKING: 35.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will state the total face value of contracts entered into between the Export Credits Department and all overseas countries, excluding the Soviet Republic, during the last six months?

Mr. GILLETT: During the six months ended 30th May last, the Exports Credits Guarantee Department entered into contracts covering credits for £1,419,341 in respect of exports to all countries excluding Russia.

EXPORT CREDITS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 37.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what is the type of information in
regard to export credits that is regarded as of so confidential a character that details cannot be furnished to the House; and whether officials appearing as witnesses before the Estimates Committee and Public Accounts Committee are similarly instructed to withhold information?

Mr. GILLETT: The Exports Credits Guarantee Department is pledged not to disclose particulars of individual cases submitted to it, nor is it desirable to disclose the type of information which is not ordinarily diclosed by private institutions of a similar nature. In this view the Advisory Committee concur. With regard to the second part of the question, as the hon. and gallant Member is aware, information is often given to these two committees which in the public interest is not published in the reports.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not desirable that the Exports Credits Committee should ask the Russian representatives to define their attitude towards the British debt?

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, in the event of a witness before the Estimates Committee being asked a question affecting a guarantee for a foreign import, will the Committee be entitled to oblige the witness to answer the question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how that arises on a point of Order.

Mr. HANNON: In the question the Estimates Committee is definitely referred to, and the question is whether a witness appearing before the Estimates Committee is entitled to refuse to disclose information?

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with me.

TARIFF REDUCTIONS (NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 84.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply has been, or will be, sent to the French Government with regard to their request to the British Government to reduce safeguarding and/or other duties which affect French exports to Great Britain?

Mr. GILLETT: Negotiations with the French and other Governments on the
question of tariff reductions are still proceeding, and I do not think it would be desirable to make any statement as to the communications which are passing on the subject at the present stage.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Member answer my question in which I asked what reply has been sent regarding the French Government's request that we should reduce safeguarding and/or other duties which affect French exports to Great Britain?

Mr. GILLETT: I can add nothing to the answer that I have given.

Sir W. BRASS: Can the hon. Member say when these conversations started?

Mr. GILLETT: No, Sir.

Sir W. BRASS: Do you not know?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL (SPECIFICATION OF STORES).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 36.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has arranged that in future the specifications of stores required for the Suez Canal Company shall be distributed by his Department and in the English language?

Mr. GILLETT: The British Resident Director in Paris of the Suez Canal Company, on the instructions of His Majesty's Government is exploring how far it may be possible to give effect to the suggestions contained in the hon. Member's question, and his report is awaited.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Is the Fair Wages Clause applied to these goods?

Mr. GILLETT: I must ask for notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of smallholdings in England and Wales the freehold of which is owned by public authorities and by private persons, respectively?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer.

No figures are directly available as to the number of smallholdings in private ownership; but the total number of holdings between one acre and 50 acres in extent returned in 1930 in England and Wales was 254,929, of which the following are known to be on land the freehold of which is owned by the authorities specified:


Councils of Counties and County Boroughs (about)
23,000


Forestry Commission
971*


Commissioners of Crown Lands (about)
420†


Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
249


War Department
251


Air Ministry
5


Duchy of Cornwall (about)
300


Duchy of Lancaster
69


* Some of these holdings are held by the Commissioners on long leases.


† Let direct to smallholders. In addition about 6,650 acres are leased to various public bodies for sub-letting in smallholdings, but the number of holdings is not known.

VETERINARY MEDICAL RESEARCH.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 39.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it will be necessary for him to ask the House to pass a Supplementary Estimate in order to carry out the scheme now being prepared for the development of veterinary medical research?

Dr. ADDISON: I cannot say at present.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will not ask any indirect grant of the taxpayer until he has consulted the House of Commons?

Dr. ADDISON: No. I cannot give an absolute guarantee of that kind. These grants are made in the course of the ordinary administration of work and proposals are not submitted individually in advance to the House of Commons. The expenditure, of course, comes before the House of Commons in the ordinary way and the Minister is responsible for what he has done.

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. O. LEWIS: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of allotments
in England and Wales the freehold of which is owned by public authorities and by private persons, respectively?

Dr. ADDISON: According to the latest returns, the number of allotments on land owned by local authorities on the 31st December, 1930, was 207,846, the area being 25,800 acres. The number on land owned by private persons was 739,087 on an area of 116,145 acres.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill stated that the bulk of these allotments were owned by local authorities, and how does he reconcile the statement he has just made with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Dr. ADDISON: I am not aware of the statement to which the right hon. Gentlemon refers, but I will inform myself of it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May we take it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entirely mistaken?

Dr. ADDISON: Before I assume that, I must know what the statement was.

NATIONAL MARK (BEEF).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 41.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the extent of the duties of the London Trade Advisory Committee on the National Mark beef scheme; and if the consideration of the development of centralised slaughtering schemes is included?

Dr. ADDISON: The London Meat Trade Advisory Committee advises me on trade and technical matters in connection with the National Mark beef scheme. The committee is not concerned with the consideration of centralised slaughtering schemes.

LAND DRAINAGE.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many drainage authorities, prior to the Drainage Act, 1930, levied rates on annual value, and how many on acreage or other basis?

Dr. ADDISON: According to the Ministry's information the number of drainage authorities who are known to have levied their rates on the basis of annual values is 93, and on acreage or other basis 258.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many drainage authorities, which prior to 1st August, 1930, levied rates on an acreage basis, have completed the ascertainment of the necessary particulars in order to enable such authorities to levy rates on an annual value basis as defined by the Act of 1930; and how many have levied a rate on such annual basis?

Dr. ADDISON: Drainage authorities are not required to furnish to the Ministry any information as to the progress made in the preparation of their valuation lists, or as to rates levied. I am therefore not in a position to furnish the particulars desired by the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman not received this information through the catchment areas?

Dr. ADDISON: Of course, the information in each case is known to the authority in question, but there is no necessity to make it known.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any considerable delay owing to the difficulty of levying on the annual value?

Dr. ADDISON: No, I have not heard of any.

WORKERS, ISLE OF WIGHT.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 51.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how the number of persons engaged in agricultural pursuits in the Isle of Wight on the latest date for which figures are available compares with the number of persons similarly employed one year previously?

Dr. ADDISON: The returns obtained by the Ministry relate only to agricultural workers (i.e., not including occupiers) on agricultural holdings exceeding one acre. The number of agricultural workers in employment on agricultural holdings exceeding one acre in the Isle of Wight in June, 1930, was 2,190. In 1929 the number returned was 2,213.

IMPORTED RUSSIAN BUTTER.

Sir W. DAVISON: 52.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the existing butter famine in Russia, many thousands of barrels of Russian butter have recently arrived in London and are being sold at
from 10½d. to 11½d. per pound; what action is being taken by the Board of Agriculture to protect the interests of British farmers in this matter; and whether he can assure the House that none of such Russian butter is mixed with British butter and sold to the public as British farmhouse butter?

Dr. ADDISON: Butter has been regularly imported into this country from Russia both before and since the War. The quantity imported in 1930 was 165,000 cwts., which was about 52 per cent. of the average importation for the preceding five years. The quantity of Russian butter imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the first four months of this year amounted to only about one-fifth of the quantity imported during the same months last year. Figures for May, 1931, are not yet available, but the quantities sold at Smithfield have been insufficient to enable the Ministry's reporter to quote a price for any week from 2nd April to 4th June. In view of these facts, the remainder of the question does not appear to arise.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have not asked for any of the information that he has very kindly given. I asked whether Russian butter has been sold in our market at 11½d. per lb. Does he not know that no British farmer can compete against this price, and is it not the duty of the Board to protect British farmers? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing?

Dr. ADDISON: All the information I gave was that the importations in May and lately are so small that we have not been able to fix a price.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any action to prevent the importation of noxious insects in this butter?

Sir W. DAVISON: May I have an answer to the last part of my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Wells.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Mr. HASLAM: 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the situation in arable districts is deteriorating week by week; and if the Government will either introduce the quota
system or apply other and more temporary means of assistance before next October?

Dr. ADDISON: I am aware of these difficulties but at present I can add nothing to the statement I made on 22nd May last on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. HASLAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out no hope whatever that any measures will be forthcoming for the relief of arable districts before next October?

Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member is not entitled to draw that assumption.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the establishment of import boards to deal with this situation?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, that is a matter which is being considered along with other matters.

POTASH FERTILISERS (PRICES).

Mr. LAMBERT: 83.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there exists a monopoly in the supply of potash fertilisers which has prevented a reduction in price as compared with other fertilisers; and if he can take any steps to modify such monopoly and to ensure the supply of potash to agriculturists at a reasonable price?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): An agreement was reached some years ago between the French and German interests which control the great bulk of the supplies, and prices in this country have risen somewhat since that time. I regret that there does not appear to be any action that I can usefully take in the matter at present.

Mr. LAMBERT: Do the Board of Trade intend to take any action in the near future on this rather important question?

Mr. SMITH: It is a difficult subject to deal with when these arrangements are made by those who control such matters.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Have the Board of Trade considered the development of Empire resources which are known to exist?

BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the average quantity of sugar produced per acre of sugar-beet in England?

Dr. ADDISON: The average quantity of commercial sugar produced per acre of sugar-beet in Great Britain was 2,838 lbs. in 1929 and 2,724 lbs. in 1930.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Sir BASIL PETO: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any decision has been arrived at as to the preparation of a revised ordnance survey of Great Britain; and whether, in view of the fact that the ordinance survey has not been amended since 1904 and in view of the land valuation that the Government propose, he will consider the advisability of putting in hand a revision of the ordnance survey at an early date?

Dr. ADDISON: It is understood that the large-scale plans of 25-inch and 6-inch are in question, and not the 1-inch and minor scales, which are revised every 15 years. The original survey, which was completed in 1888, is periodically revised, the average period between revisions of any particular sheet being about 20 years. At the present moment the area of Greater London is being revised, and though many plans in other places are urgently in need of revision it has not been found possible to increase the staff for the purpose. Special arrangements for ordnance survey revision in connection with land valuation are being considered.

Sir B. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the impossibility of proceeding with valuation with large-scale ordnance maps of which some are 20 years old?

Dr. ADDISON: I have said that those matters are being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET MINISTERS' SALARIES.

Mr. O. LEWIS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the proposals of the Japanese Government for a reduction in the salaries of their Ministers; and whether, having
regard to the deterioration in the finances of this country during the past two years, he will bring forward some similar proposal for a reduction in the salaries of Ministers of the Crown?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I can add nothing to the replies which have already been given on this subject.

Mr. BECKETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the leaders of the two Opposition parties with a view to instituting a system of payment by results?

Sir K. WOOD: When is the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to a voluntary reduction going to be put into effect?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to what I have already said.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Sir K. WOOD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared to lay as a White Paper a report of the recommendations of the Economic Advisory Council?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. The Economic Advisory Council is a body appointed to give confidential advice to His Majesty's Government, and I shall lay no such White Paper.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it possible, in view of the grave circumstances of the time, to acquaint the House with such advice of this committee as he thinks would be suitable?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is only the original question in another form.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the First Lord of the Admiralty quoted something which purported to be advice about wages and Protection? What is he going to do about that?

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government
has now arrived at a definite decision as to its intentions in regard to the forthcoming Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa; and whether any decision has yet been made regarding the cereal policy to be proposed at the conference, particularly as regards wheat quotas?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs will make a statement on this subject to-morrow.

Sir G. PENNY: Is there any likelihood of the Minister of Agriculture resigning if the Cabinet do not agree—[Interruption].

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 49.
asked the Prime Minister when he will give the House a statement on the Government's policy on the report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance and on the action they propose to take?

Mr. BRACKEN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government proposes to implement the recommendations contained in the first report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) on Thursday last, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. WILLIAMS: When will the Prime Minister be in a position to make an announcement, and may we assume that he naturally accepts the report of his own Royal Commission?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has my right hon. Friend any information as to the attitude of the Opposition towards this report?

Mr. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has given an answer.

MANCHESTER AND SALFORD.

Sir G. HURST: 79.
asked the Minister of Labour the latest figures as to the number of unemployed persons in Manchester and Salford; and how does such number compare with the corresponding number in May, 1929?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): At 1st June, 1931, there were 95,796 persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the Manchester and Salford areas. The number at 3rd June, 1929, was 36,064.

Sir G. HURST: Do not these figures afford an excellent illustration of Socialism in our time?

MARRIED WOMEN.

Sir G. PENNY: 81.
asked the Minister of Labour what instructions have been issued to Employment Exchange officials with regard to investigating specially the cases of married women in receipt of unemployment benefit who have ceased to be actively employed at their former occupation; and whether in any such cases the payment of benefit has been terminated?

Miss BONDFIELD: There are no special instructions on this point. Any question whether the conditions for the receipt of benefit are satisfied is referred to the statutory authorities for decision as in the case of other classes of claimants. During the five weeks ended 13th April last 6,066 claims made by married women were disallowed by courts of referees on the ground that they were not normally employed in insurable employment and would not normally seek to obtain their livelihood by means of insurable employment.

Sir G. PENNY: The Minister says that there are no special instructions given. I should like to know whether any instructions were issued?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

IRISH SWEEPSTAKE (CORRESPONDENCE).

Mr. DAY: 56.
asked the Postmaster-General the amount of overtime that it has been found necessary for the staff of the Post Office to work to deal with the correspondence addressed to the organisers of the Irish hospitals sweepstake on the Derby; and can he give the approximate cost?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee): The correspondence in question was dealt with in conjunction with the ordinary work of the Post Office and did not entail the performance of overtime.

Sir W. BRASS: Are we to understand from the reply that the hon. Member has a surplus of employés able to do this work?

Mr. ATTLEE: No, Sir. The staff is large enough, and has to be large enough, to deal with such fluctuations.

SALE OF PICTURE POSTCARDS.

Commander SOUTHBY: 57.
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is the intention of the Post Office to enter into competition with private individuals by selling picture postcards at local post offices?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 59.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will, before arriving at any decision respecting the sale of photographic-view postcards at post offices, consult the representatives of the Stationers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland and of the Newsagents' Trade Union?

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: 60.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the proposed sale of picture postcards of seaside resorts by the Post Office will adversely affect the business of large and small retail traders who depend on the sale of these cards for a portion of their business whether he has considered the representations to this effect from their trade organisations; and if he will make no decision contrary to their interests?

Sir B. PETO: 61.
asked the Postmaster-General whether a decision has been arrived at on the question of the Post Office going into the picture postcard business; and whether, before arriving at any decision, he will take into consideration the fact that this business forms a large part of the living of many small shopkeepers whose interests would be injuriously affected by competitive trading by a State Department?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 67.
asked the Postmaster-General when the proposals for the issue by his Department of picture postcards will be sufficiently advanced for consultation with representatives of retail stationers; and whether he will hold such consultation before coming to a decision?

Mr. ATTLEE: As I informed hon. Members in the answer given to similar questions on Thursday the 4th instant, no
decision has yet been made. I might add that the Stationers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland has been made aware of the scope of the proposals. I should be prepared to discuss the matter with trade associations interested.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the hon. Gentleman willing to receive a deputation of those who object to this form of competition?

Mr. ATTLEE: I have said so.

Commander SOUTHBY: Will the hon. Member agree to do nothing further until he has had an opportunity of consulting the deputation?

Mr. ATTLEE: I have already stated that I am prepared to receive deputations and representations, and obviously I should not take steps until I had done so.

WIRELESS TELEPHONE SERVICE (SINGAPORE).

Sir W. DAVISON: 58.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the lack of telephonic communication between this country and the Federated Malay States, whereas there is an excellent telephone service to Great Britain and the Continent from the adjoining Dutch colonies; and whether the Post Office have in contemplation the remedying of this handicap and inconvenience to British residents in Malaya?

Mr. ATTLEE: The question of establishing a wireless telephone service between this country and Singapore is under consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any definite statement on the subject.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Member recognise the handicap to British subjects compared with Dutch nationals?

Mr. ATTLEE: Negotiations are proceeding.

RACECOURSE MEETINGS.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 66.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of branch offices which are set up in the course of the racing season by his Department to deal with racecourse betting on the occasion of the chief racecourse meetings?

Mr. ATTLEE: The number of racecourses at which a temporary telegraph office is opened for dealing with Press and ordinary telegrams is about 90.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).

Captain CAZALET: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the terms of the agreement between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Covent Garden Syndicate have yet been settled; and, if so, when will they be laid upon the Table of the House?

Mr. ATTLEE: The terms of the agreement between the Post Office and the British Broadcasting Corporation, which govern the payment of the proposed Opera subsidy, have been completed and the agreement will be laid before Parliament as soon as it has been executed. I do not think it is necessary to lay the agreement between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Opera Syndicate, but I shall be prepared to explain its principal provisions if the matter is the subject of Debate in the House.

Captain CAZALET: Has any money yet passed from the Post Office to the Covent Garden Syndicate?

Mr. ATTLEE: No, Sir.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Can the hon. Member say whether a Fair Wages Clause has been included in this agreement?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT WORKS (MATERIALS).

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: 68.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will give an undertaking that in future only British or Empire materials shall be used by his Department in the construction or repair of buildings for which he is responsible?

Mr. LANSBURY: This policy is already followed so far as is practicable.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: 74.
asked the First Commissioner of Works how much timber imported from Soviet Russia was used by his Department last year?

Mr. LANSBURY: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar
question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) on the 15th April last.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Are the figures still the same?

Mr. LANSBUBY: The figures which I gave on that occasion were the real figures, and therefore they remain the same.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 75.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the evidence in the report on Russian timber camps published under the auspices of the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society, he will discontinue the use for his Department of timber imported from Soviet Russia?

Mr. LANSBURY: No, Sir.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the report of the Anti-Slavery Committee which states definitely that political prisoners and ordinary convict labour are being used for the transportation of Russian timber abroad under inhuman and oppressive conditions?

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that machinery exists outside my Department for determining what are prison-made or prison-produced goods. It is not my business to determine that, but the business of that Department. I am not prepared to insert in Government contracts a prohibition of imported materials based on a source of origin which does not operate in commercial contracts.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Is is not the policy of the Government in business matters to set an example to the business community?

Captain BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the authorities have a fair wages clause in their contracts?

Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Have they; have the other people?"] I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANCIENT AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS (POSTERS).

Mr. EDE: 71.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if copies of the posters
illustrating certain ancient and historic buildings, and recently displayed by his Department in the Tea Room, are for sale; and whether there is a reduction for an education authority or other purchaser taking a quantity?

Mr. LANSBURY: A limited supply of these posters can be made available for sale, and the price can be reduced if a quantity is taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL PARKS (MOTOR COACHES).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 72.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the fact that taximeter-cabs are allowed to go through the public parks, he will consider the desirability of permitting motor coaches to do so, particularly for the benefit of visitors to London?

Mr. LANSBURY: The roads in the Royal Parks are not generally suited to carry heavy traffic, but permission is given for motor coaches to use certain roads in Hyde Park, St. James's and the Green Parks, and Holyrood Park.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it a new departure to allow these particular roads to be used, or have they been used for some time?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am glad to say that they have been used for some time.

MEETINGS (LITERATURE AND COLLECTIONS).

Mr. BROCKWAY (for Mr. W. J. BROWN): 69.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider modifying the regulations which forbid the sale of literature and the taking of collections at meetings in the Royal parks?

Mr. LANSBURY: I have given this matter very careful consideration from time to time, but, as I informed my hon. Friend in November last, I am convinced that it is in the best interests of the users of the parks generally not to alter the existing policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN v. WALLACE (COSTS).

Mr. DAY: 76.
asked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the recent decision of the Criminal Court of Appeal in the case of the Crown v. Wallace, who had been convicted of murder at Liverpool, he will say whether there is any
fund by which the costs incurred by this defendant can be refunded; and will he consider the introduction of legislation whereby a successful defendant in criminal appeal cases may have his costs and out-of-pocket expenses refunded to him by the State?

Mr. PALMER: 77.
asked the Attorney-General if he has looked into the case of Herbert William Wallace, of Liverpool, and the circumstances in which the sentence of death was quashed by the Court of Appeal; and whether he will consider introducing legislation to secure a grant of money in view of the expenses incurred in defending the case, the 16 weeks' detention in prison, and the mental and physical suffering caused to this man?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): The Criminal Appeal Act provides that on the hearing and determination of an appeal no costs shall be allowed to either side. Apart from the statutory assistance given to poor prisoners there is no fund from which a successful appellant may be reimbursed. I am by no means convinced that it would be in the public interest to introduce legislation granting the right of reimbursement in all cases, and it is obviously undesirable to differentiate between cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (TUBERCULOSIS).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 78.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ratings invalided with tuberculosis who were sent sick from His Majesty's Ship "Warspite" during the last commission?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. H. Hall): The number of cases of tuberculosis which have occurred in His Majesty's Ship "Warspite" since she recommissioned on the 23rd January, 1929, is 13, of which 11 have been invalided and two have died in hospital.

Sir B. FALLE: Will the hon. Member specially inquire into this matter and see what the cause may be of so many cases, and can he say how many of the men have been pensioned?

Mr. HALL: Eight were pensioned out of 13. An inquiry has already been held. Unfortunately, we were not able to ascertain the actual cause of the very high percentage of cases in 1929.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S NATIONAL ROLL (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Major THOMAS: 80.
asked the Minister of Labour which local authorities still refuse to accept the conditions which would enable them to become members of the King's National Roll?

Miss BONDFIELD: Owing to the changes of staff of local authorities consequent on the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929, and to the necessity for obtaining revised undertakings, the position of local authorities in regard to the King's National Roll is under review. The matter will shortly come before the King's Roll National Council for consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL PARKS.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 85.
asked the Minister of Health if he proposes to take action upon any of the lines suggested in the report of the National Park Committee?

Mr. THURTLE (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The report is at present being considered by the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE).

Mr. HARRIS: 86.
asked the President of the Board of Education if local authorities are still being encouraged by him to provide the necessary buildings and train additional teachers for the raising of the school age in April, 1933?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): The answer is in the negative. My right hon. Friend is sending the hon. Member copies of two Memoranda which he has recently issued to local education authorities.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the Department realise how important it is in the interests of education to know what the policy of the Government is in regard to this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH SWEEPSTAKES (PROSECUTIONS).

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: 87.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department
whether, in, view of the reluctance of magistrates to convict persons charged with offences in connection with Irish sweepstakes and of the dissatisfaction of the public with a policy involving an arbitrary selection of a few persons for prosecution, he will consider the abandonment of his present policy?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): My attention has been called to a certain number of cases where magistrates appear to have felt the reluctance attributed to them by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do not believe that magistrates as a whole would allow personal views to influence them in the discharge of their public duty of enforcing the law as they find it. There is no arbitrary selection of persons for prosecution. It is the duty of the police to take proceedings in all cases which come to their notice and where the necessary evidence is available. I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman means by the expression "my present policy." My duty as Home Secretary, so long as the law remains unaltered, is perfectly clear and it would be most improper and unconstitutional for me or any holder of my office to adopt a policy of ignoring the law. I may add that the question whether any amendment of the law in relation to sweepstakes is necessary or desirable is receiving the careful consideration of the Government, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement at an early date.

Sir T. INSKIP: May I give notice, in consequence of what I respectfully regard as the unsatisfactory character of the answer, that I propose to raise the question, with your permission Mr. Speaker, on the Adjournment to-night?

Sir W. DAVISON: On a point of Order, and not with the view of further pressing the question, may I, in view of the Home Secretary's suggestion that the magistrates were guided by their personal—

Mr. CLYNES: I suggested the opposite.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOBILE POLICE (UNIFORM).

Mr. DAY: 88.
asked the Home Secretary what changes in the uniform or dress
of the mobile police are being contemplated either in the Metropolitan Police Area or other districts?

Mr. CLYNES: As regards the Metropolitan police, the present uniform of the mobile patrols is to some extent in the experimental stage and no decision has yet been reached as to what changes will be made. I have no information as to any contemplated changes in other police forces in England and Wales.

Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to allow some of these police officers to wear civilian clothes when on duty?

Mr. CLYNES: It is not the intention to have any special force in civilian clothes.

Sir W. BRASS: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not allow these mobile police to appear in plain clothes instead of in uniform?

Mr. CLYNES: Circumstances must determine certain acts of policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND VALUE TAX.

Major COLVILLE: 89.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what answer he has returned to the memorial addressed to him by representative bodies in Scotland, including the universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and St. Andrews, the governors of George Heriot's Trust, the Scottish Committee of the National Playing Fields Association, the Heart of Midlothian Football Club, and the Scottish Rugby Union, urging that exemption should be given to them from the proposed tax on land values?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The memorial has been acknowledged and is receiving careful consideration.

Major COLVILLE: May I ask whether there is any responsible body of opinion in the country which has not protested against the proposed Land Value Tax?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES (EXPORTATION).

Mr. MACPHERSON: 50.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now make
a further statement with regard to the export of aged and infirm horses; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to prohibit this traffic?

Dr. ADDISON: I am sending the right hon. and learned Member a copy of the reply which I gave to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) on the 30th January, 1930, from which he will see that horses are not passed for export unless they are fit to work and to travel.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAX OFFICES, BIRKENHEAD.

Mr. WHITE: 70.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the present position with regard to the proposed new tax offices at Birkenhead?

Mr. LANSBURY: I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to my reply on the 27th January last, or to the information recently conveyed in correspondence with the hon. Member.

Mr. WHITE: Will the First Commissioner of Works regard this matter as one of urgency, in view of the fact that the present buildings are most unsuitable for the staff and for the public who have to use them.

Mr. LANSBURY: I can assure the hon. Member that this matter is receiving constant attention, but it would not be in the public interest to discuss the details of the proposal.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask whether the Prime Minister is in a position to tell us what the business will be on Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER: The business on Friday will be the Mauritius Loan Guarantee Bill, Second Reading; British Museum and National Gallery (Overseas Loans) Bill, further stages; the Committee stage of a Money Resolution, on which will be founded a Bill to give effect to the British Beet Sugar Subsidy, announced on the 12th February last. This Resolution will, it is hoped, appear on the Notice Paper to-morrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Gould; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Haycock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

[FIRST ALLOTTED DAY.]

Order for Committee read.

The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Taper in the name of Captain BOURNE:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two parts and to report Part III and the First and Second Schedules separately to the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: It appears to me that, since the Guillotine Resolution has been passed by the House, this is a Motion to which effect cannot be given. It would not, therefore, be in order to move it now.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: For the guidance of the House, may I ask whether there is any method by which, if a Guillotine Motion is applied to a Bill, we can raise the question of the division of the Bill into two parts? I understand that there has been no opportunity of making any such Motion until this moment, but, as you have ruled, very naturally and, of course, quite rightly, that since the Guillotine Motion has been passed this Motion, which otherwise would be in order, now becomes out of order, may I ask what is the time and the method by which an hon. Member who desires to take the sense of the House on the question that the Bill be divided into two parts can put such an issue to the House)

Mr. SPEAKER: The only way that could be done is to move it as an Amendment to the Guillotine Resolution. I think it should be embodied in the Guillotine Resolution.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I draw your attention to the fact that the Guillotine Resolution itself purports to provide time for the discussion of such an Instruction which has been ruled out of order. If you look at the Resolution itself, you will find that time is specifically provided for a discussion of this Instruction, which is the only Instruction that has ever appeared on the Order Paper in regard to this Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Instruction would have been in order had it not been for the Guillotine Resolution which allots time for the various Clauses and portions of the Bill, and I do not see how such a Motion can be applied to the Bill now.

Captain BOURNE: For the guidance of the House on a future occasion, may I ask whether the effect of your Ruling is that where the House has agreed to a Guillotine Resolution an Instruction to divide the Bill into two would be out of order unless some provision is made in the Guillotine Resolution itself for such a proposal?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member can ask that question of course, but it is rather in the air, as I do not know what some future Guillotine Motion might contain. I can only say that a Motion of this kind to be in order should have been included in the Guillotine Resolution.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I point out that the time table only denotes the time at which the discussion shall end, and I submit that such a Motion would be in order at the beginning of the proceedings.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think this Motion is out of order now in view of the Guillotine Resolution which allots time to the various Clauses of the Bill.

Mr. SANDHAM: May I ask whether there is any method of cutting out useless verbiage in this House?

HON. MEMBERS: Yes, resign!

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of customs duty on hydrocarbon oils.)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT-WARD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, after the word "oils," to insert the words "other than turpentine and white spirits."

The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed the first two Amendments together. The discussion would also cover later consequential Amendments.

Sir A. LAMBERT-WARD: The abject of this Amendment is to exclude from the operation of the Petrol Duty oils of the hydrocarbonate group known as turpentine and white spirits. This is not the first time this question has been discussed by the Committee. Several attempts have already been made to obtain the necessary relief from this tax, and deputations have waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary with the same object in view. The effect of the Amendment would be to relieve turpentine and white spirits from the operation of the tax, leaving petrol, which is the motive power of the modern combustion engine, subject to the tax. A few words as to how this tax came to be imposed may not be out of place. As every one is aware, when it became a question of de-rating, or relieving from rates, many of the industries of the country it became necessary to find a means of providing the money whereby that could be effected, and it seemed a very suitable thing that petrol should pay its fair proportion of the tax, especially as the price of petrol during recent years has fallen to such an extent that with the tax it was scarcely appreciably higher than it had been without the tax some months before.
There is no reason whatever for supposing that there can be any difficulty in differentiating between turpentine and petrol. It is possible that with regard to white spirits there is more difficulty in differentiating between the two substances, but with regard to turpentine there is not and cannot be any difficulty whatever. Any reason why white spirit should be subject to the tax is quite apart from any of the arguments that might be advanced for including turpentine. First of all with regard to the argument against the tax, it is undoubtedly a tax on one of the raw materials of industry and of an important industry. Unfortunately it is not an industry which employs a very large number of people; otherwise there is not the least doubt that such an outcry would have been aroused that the Chancellor of Exchequer would have been compelled to give way and relieve the manufacturers of the tax. Many people say that as the manufacturers themselves receive distinct benefits from the derating of their industries, it is not for them to grumble at being called upon to provide in some small way the funds
which are necessary for de-rating. But in many cases manufacturers in these industries find themselves called upon to pay more in tax than they are actually relieved of by the de-rating. In regard to a certain big manufacturing firm in my constituency it has been proved that, although they receive the benefit of something like £2,500 from de-rating of their industry, they are called upon to pay more than £4,000 in tax on this raw material. Before he occupied the position which he holds now the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke against this tax in very strong terms indeed. He said:
This is a tax that I myself would never have thought of proposing unless all the other available sources of revenue had been completely exhausted.
Although taxation is high in this country, it is surely impossible to say that we have arrived at a state of affairs such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer visualised when he made those remarks. If we read a little further, we find that the Chancellor said;
It is a tax upon industry, and therefore, theoretically and to a large extent practically, that is a condemnation of the tax."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1930; col. 73; Vol. 241.]
So we see that before the right hon. Gentleman occupied the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer he was himself opposed to the tax, and it was only reasonable to suppose that when he attained his present position some modification at any rate of the tax would be introduced. But instead of that we find that the tax is not only carried on in the burdensome form adopted by his predecessor, but that the Chancellor is in the present Budget actually increasing the burden to the extent of 2d. per gallon on this raw material of industry. During recent years several new industries in which this commodity is used have sprung up. For example, there is the manufacture of furniture polish, boot polish, and many other kinds of polish which are sold in small tins and which recently have been selling abroad in competition with articles produced there. Although a rebate is granted on the value of the materials which is included in the articles for export, it is a very complicated and costly business to obtain that rebate. Moreover, it is very difficult to decide the exact amount of dutiable material which is included, say, in a tin of boot polish.
The material is also used extensively in the manufacture of paint and varnish, both articles which up to a few years ago were exported largely from this country. Unfortunately increasing competition abroad is making it more and more difficult to maintain the sale of the British article in those markets, and this tax, by increasing the cost of the article abroad, is making the sale still more difficult. There is another article in which turpentine figures very largely, and that is linoleum. A few years ago English linoleum had practically a monopoly of sale all over the Continent. To-day competing articles of a similar kind are being extensively manufactured in Belgium and in Germany, and it is becoming more and more difficult to maintain the sale of English linoleum in those countries. The present time, with trade going against us, as it appears to be doing, surely is no time for imposing a fresh burden on this industry. What would the Chancellor of the Exchequer lose by accepting the Amendment? If he gave way in full and exempted turpentine and white spirit from the operation of the petrol tax, I gather from what he has told us that it would cost the Treasury approximately £500,000, but that if he gave way only in regard to turpentine the cost would be approximately £100,000.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Eighty thousand pounds.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I am putting it at the highest figure. In view of the position of trade and industry in this country, in view of the depression in the trades which employ these articles as a raw material, it is not a great deal to ask that they shall be relieved to that extent. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to accept the Amendment dealing both with white spirits and turpentine, let him give us the concession on turpentine alone. Turpentine is a vegetable oil, whereas petrol is a mineral spirit. There is no difficulty at all in differentiating between the two. Turpentine cannot possibly be used in internal-combustion engines, and the concession would not open the way to an extensive evasion of the tax. On the other hand by meeting us and giving us the concession, the Chancellor would certainly do a great deal towards encouraging
these trades, many of which are new trades and are struggling with severe foreign competition. I ask the President of the Board of Trade, who represents the Treasury to-day, whether he cannot see his way to grant the concession.

4.0 p.m

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I cannot let this subject pass even for the third time in this Budget without saying a word in support of the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Baronet. May I ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who, I presume, is going to reply, what am I to say to the workmen in Hull who are employed in the paint and colour industry after having had his support for this very Amendment in the Division Lobby, and the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a previous Budget of the Conservative Government, and having used this as one of the examples of the iniquities attempted by the last Government? I do ask my hon. Friend to get me out of the difficulty. What am I to say to them? It is not so much the manufacturers, but the working men who are hit by this tax, because as it decreases their employment, so the effect on wages is greater.
Having made that request, which I know my hon. Friend with his great adroitness will be able to meet, I want only to put to the Committee what I think is a comparatively new point. If you take the ladder which you get when you refine natural oil or petroleum, you have, first of all, the lightest spirit boiling below 200 degrees centigrade, and you call that petrol. That appears at the top of your ladder. That is taxed. The next product you get is paraffin or methylated spirits. That has been exempted because of the outcry from the agricultural Members of the House in the last Parliament. It was first of all taxed and then exempted. Then you get your white spirit, a heavier oil which has never been used in internal combustion engines. That is taxed. Below that you get the fourth commodity, or heavy crude oil, which is sold for bunkers in oil-burning steamers. That is exempt from tax. So that you have two taxed and two exempted. You have had the lighter spirit exempted in the case of paraffin and the heavier oil exempted in the case of crude oil. I do not know if
I have made this matter clear. I am not a chemist, and I do not attempt to explain the formulae with exactitude, but that is how the chart stands and that is how treatment of its component parts varies.
There is no reason at all why white spirit should be taxed and paraffin exempted. The tax is a very heavy one. It is a revenue import duty of about 100 per cent. on white spirit, and with regard to turpentine it is a revenue import duty of about 75 per cent. As the hon. and gallant Baronet has just told the Committee, turpentine is a vegetable oil which never ought to have been included in the tax, which is all the more onerous now, not only because it is increased from 4d. to 6d. a gallon, but because of the tremendous fall in commodity values throughout the world. White spirit and turpentine bought in bulk by the manufacturer have gone down tremendously in price. Therefore, the tax is all the more severely felt, and as competitors who are competing in the markets of the world, and, indeed, in our own markets, do not pay the tax, the manufacturers feel the weight of these duties all the more severely. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to receive a deputation of Members of Parliament on this subject last week, and, in his usual kindly way, turned us down. I understand his view is that we must have the money. There are many other commodities brought into this country we could well do without that ought to be taxed; if you must have a revenue import duty—this wicked thing!—put it on real luxuries, and not on basic raw materials for important manufactures which give employment to British workmen and which, exported abroad, give employment to British ships and the sailors who man them.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: I understand from your Bailing, Sir Robert, that my Amendment, which stands next on the Order Paper, is to be discussed alongside this Amendment. My Amendment is a specific suggestion, not that the whole tax on turpentine and white spirit should be removed, but that a very small proportion of turpentine only, which is used in the manufacture of synthetic camphor shall be allowed relief from this tax. On 5th May, on the Report of the Financial Besolution, I referred to this matter.
After listening to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), I was sufficiently misled to believe that turpentine was not a hydrocarbon oil. After the Debate, I looked it up in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and found that it was a hydrocarbon oil; but it is a vegetable, and not a mineral oil. If, therefore, I caused the Treasury officials any moment of uneasiness by those remarks, I apologise and withdraw them. But although I made a mistake there I think the President of the Board of Trade in his reply, made another mistake because, in answering my specific point, he said:
But I can say that it is true that this case of synthetic camphor is confined to one firm, with possibly a second, and I think it can also be shown that competition is not so much with an imported article of the same kind, as, perhaps, with the natural camphor from Japan. Inasmuch as no turpentine remains in the finished product here, I am inclined to agree that there is perhaps a case of a kind to be made, within limits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1931; col. 258, Vol. 252.]
The President of the Board of Trade was very careful, and I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to be present to-day, because again I have to appeal to the President of the Board of Trade, who says that "within limits" there is a case. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to settle this matter, and possibly by the Report stage something may be done. In that way we are put off each time. Really, the President of the Board of Trade was quite wrong when he said that the competition with this synthetic camphor was that of the natural camphor from Japan. It is not so. The competition comes from the synthetic camphor produced in Germany. The President, in his answer, referred to the fact that turpentine had dropped many shillings a hundredweight quite recently, and therefore he argued that it was much easier to produce artificial camphor to compete with the raw material coming from Japan. I interrupted with the remark that it was a drop in the world price, so that Germany benefited as well, and had not to pay a tax of 6d. a gallon on turpentine, the raw material used in the production of this important commodity.
Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that during the War this country could not get camphor from Japan, because the sea voyage was too
long, and, obviously, could not get it from Germany, which was an enemy country, and we could not produce it in this country. A company has spent no less than £60,000 in trying to discover how to produce this artificial camphor. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Major Church), and in the names of two of my hon. and gallant Friends, which is, I think, a better Amendment even than mine. It means exactly the same, but instead of using the words "synthetic camphor," it says
but including oil of turpentine used in the manufacture of camphor.
I am informed by experts, whom I have taken the liberty of consulting, that the expression "synthetic camphor" is, possibly, open to some doubt. It is not quite clear as to whether the actual artificial camphor produced by the use of oil of turpentine can be described technically as synthetic camphor, so that should the President of the Board of Trade listen to my eloquence, and that of my hon. Friends who are going to support this Amendment, I hope that he may adopt the actual words in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth, who, I am sorry, does not appear to be in the Committee at the moment. This is, really, a very small matter. It does not mean giving up £100,000. If the tax were enforced at 6d. a gallon, it would, on the present production, mean only a loss of £1,300 a year to the Treasury. It would not be Protection, but only putting British industry on the same footing as the German industry. It would not be giving any protection to the home industry, but merely removing a most wicked tax, which, to my mind, was put on quite by accident. When the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) introduced this tax, I believe he had no intention whatever to tax turpentine. I think he must have asked his Treasury officials for a general description of what oils he should tax, and was told hydrocarbon oils, and, turpentine happening to be a hydrocarbon oil, it has come into this tax. This is a tax on a raw material, a direct impost on the raw material of a struggling new industry which is endeavouring
to compete with a prosperous German industry. £1,300 a year is not very much.
The particular company, the Xylonite Company, employs 2,000 hands, mostly in celluloid producing. Now the production of celluloid is dependent on the use of camphor as a raw material, and during the War it was found impossible to produce celluloid in this country, because they could not get camphor. After they had spent £60,000 in ascertaining how to produce this camphor artificially, the right hon. Member for Epping, I think entirely by accident, put a tax of 4d. on the raw material, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer increases that to 6d. That means 130s. a ton, and as two tons of turpentine are used to produce one ton of artificial camphor, that would mean 260s. a ton on artificial camphor. It is no use saying that that is a small tax. It is a very heavy tax. It represents, I am informed, 8 per cent. on the present market price of artificial camphor, and that is giving our German competitors a clear 8 per cent. in their favour.
In addition to the Xylonite Company which is mainly concerned, there is in my Division Messrs. Howards, a big firm of chemical manufacturers, who are very seriously interested, indirectly, in this matter. While the Xylonite Company employ 2,000 people in the production of various articles, they do not claim to employ many people in the actual process of producing synthetic camphor; but if they cannot get camphor, if there is some further trouble in Europe or some occurrence interfering with the supply of camphor, their business would be stopped. Is it not better to give them a chance to get this new industry on its feet and enable them to employ more people? I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there are plenty of people out of work who could be taken on immediately if the production of synthetic camphor in this country were increased. At present a great deal of the camphor used in this country is imported, but, given a chance, this concern which has spent so much money on research work may be able to produce the greater part of this country's requirements as far as camphor is concerned, and to set up a prosperous business employing many of our good English working people.
The right hon. Gentleman agreed previously that there was something in my argument, but judging from the rather severe way in which he is looking at me now I fear he is going to say that he has discussed the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to spare the money. Well, £1,300 a year out of the British Treasury, given in the interests of British industry, is surely not much. As I have said, this Duty was put on, originally, by a slip, and the right hon. Gentleman as President of the Board of Trade will be doing something in the interests of the trade of the country if he persuades the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept this small Amendment.

Mr. HARRIS: I wish to add my plea to those which have already been made to the right hon. Gentleman that he should meet this just grievance. The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) made an excellent speech in reference to one part of the problem but, as regards his suggestion that this duty was put on by accident, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) cannot get away with that excuse. It was pointed out at the time that there was need for the modification of the duty and, in fact we moved Amendments to it in the last Parliament. I know the need for revenue and how hard up the Government is for money, but this only shows how wrong it is to put on a bad tax. It is easy to impose a duty but it is extraordinarily difficult to have it removed. Once the Treasury find a source of revenue they are reluctant to part with it. This duty has all the faults that can attach to any tax of the kind. It is undoubtedly a tax on the raw material of a great number of industries. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to the paint industry. Paint, in turn, is a raw material of the building industry, and a tremendous number of people are at present unemployed in the painters' section of the building industry. The cost of painting is almost prohibitive.
I think it unfortunate that the President of the Board of Trade, who took such an active part, originally, in protesting against this duty, should be ready now not only to accept it but to
aggravate the grievance, because the duty is increased. It is a warning to our Tariff Reform friends of how dangerous it is to tamper with taxation of this kind. A duty may look very innocent in theory and may give protection to a particular industry, and then, in practice, upset a hundred and one other industries. We warned the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, at the time, of the effect of this duty, and many Members of the present Government joined in that warning but now they are prepared to accept the revenue and to refuse to listen to any plea for the modification of the duty. It is not a large source of revenue, and it has been modified in many respects, but, in this particular case of synthetic camphor for instance, the Xylonite Company I understand are going through a very difficult time. They are manufacturers, largely, of luxury articles, the trade in which is extremely depressed, and many of their markets—Australia for example-are closed. I understand that a number of their workers are on short time because of trade depression and now comes this additional duty. It is no use saying that the world price has gone down. That is an unsound argument, because the world price acts to the advantage as much of the German manufacturers as of the manufacturers in this country. If, during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, the Government could make some small concession in this matter, I am sure they would be doing the right thing.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I am sorry that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) should have twitted Members in this part of the Committee with their opposition to this duty and advanced it as an argument against the imposition of protective duties. There is one thing which this duty on white spirits and turpentine is not. It is not a protective duty. Some 90 per cent. of the white spirits used in this country is already produced in this country and therefore there would be no advantage in a protective duty to keep out foreign imports. As regards turpentine the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green should know that it is a vegetable oil which cannot possibly be produced in this country and therefore an import duty of 500 per cent. would not encourage
its production here. Thus, his argument about the inadvisability of protective duties and his warning to hon. Members on these benches, are peculiarly inappropriate to the subject under discussion.
This duty, certainly, was imposed, in the first place, partially for protective reasons. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had not only in mind the urgent need of raising revenue from motor users but also the fact that if he could put a duty upon imported oils, he would thereby foster the home production of oils. I should not oppose this duty if I thought it was designed to have that effect, but, in this case, the duty does nothing to increase the home production of these particular oils. The argument which the President of the Board of Trade put up against this Amendment on the Report stage of the Budget Resolution was that he could not afford the loss of revenue, and, I think, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury argued that he could not possibly allow any interference with the integrity of the duties on oils. These arguments do not carry much weight because the duty upon turpentine and white spirits produced a revenue of something like £500,000 a year which as has already been pointed out, is exactly the amount which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sacrificed by allowing the duty on wrapping paper to lapse. The argument that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at his wits end to know where to turn for money and that in order to raise the necessary revenue he must maintain this duty on an essential raw material for British industry is not one which will gain much support.
I think that the President of the Board of Trade must be alarmed by the support which this Amendment has received from Members of all three parties—including the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)—who have spoken so strongly in its favour. Those Members are wondering how they can go to their constituencies and defend the imposition of this duty on British industry because it is a duty which will enter into the cost of production of many essential articles. It is notable, while the right hon. Gentleman
refuses to abolish this duty on home producers, that in Germany, the German manufacturer can obtain a permit for refund of duty paid upon the oils which he uses in the manufacture of his paints and varnishes. If the German manufacturer can be relieved in this way, it should not be outside the range of administrative possibility to arrange for a similar remission in the case of our own home industries.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to listen to the strong appeal which has been made from every part of the Committee on behalf of A not electorally important, but industrially important section of the community. I am particularly interested because among many industries in my constituency in Bristol the manufacture of paints and varnishes and wallpaper is not the least important. These industries are pleading with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the remission of a heavy burden upon their costs, a burden out of all proportion to the cost of the materials which they produce, a burden which in the case of white spirit, amounts to something like 70 per cent. of the selling cost, and in the case of turpentine to something like 20 per cent. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to seek elsewhere the revenue which he requires, to sacrifice this small sum in the interests of British industry, and to listen to the advice which has been given to him from all parts of the Committee.

Commander SOUTHBY: If any further argument were required in favour of the Amendment it is to be found in the fact that there is support for it from all sides of the Committee, and it must be clear to the President of the Board of Trade that if a free vote were taken on this Amendment, there would be no doubt about the result. The Amendment would be carried by an overwhelming majority. Indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman himself votes as he did on a previous occasion he will have to support this Amendment in the Lobby, and so will other prominent Members of the party opposite including the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I have no desire to traverse the ground already covered by the hon. Members who have already spoken in favour of the Amendment. I think that the Best statement of the case is probably to be found in the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for
Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) on a previous occasion, in Committee of Ways and Means.
A false impression, however, appears to be in the mind of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). The difference between this duty and the protective duties which we on these benches advocate is that we wish to put on those duties, in order to help our own people against foreign competition, whereas this duty is put on, apparently, in order to hinder our own people and help foreign competition. That is the difference between the duties proposed by hon. Members opposite and those advocated from this side of the Committee. This duty affords a tremendous help to foreign manufacturers of linoleums, paints and varnishes who are in competition with our own manufacturers of those articles. The sum involved is not very great, and therefore I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will not close the door to the proposal that this duty should be removed. I make no apology for asking the indulgence of the Committee while I remind hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite of what was said upon this subject on a previous occasion by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He said:
The duties are unjust and injurious to trade and employment. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer taxes these light oils, it is his business, and not ours, to see that they can be put on without detriment to the interests of trade and industry. If he cannot do it, it is not an argument for allowing injustice to continue. It is an argument for removing them and imposing other taxation which is not open to the same objection,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1928; cols. 1022–3, Vol. 220.]
I call upon the hon. Member to make good the opinion expressed in those words and to use his influence at any rate with his right hon. Friend to see that these duties are not proceeded with in this Budget.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would give to the Committee some explanation, if not justification, of this extraordinary passion of the Government for taxing raw materials as against any other form of goods imported into this country. It seems a strange desire for so ardent a Free Trader as himself and as the Financial Secretary of the Treasury. The other explanation that I should like to have is why, in imposing
any form of revenue duty on goods coming into this country, the essential desire of the Government seems to be to assist our foreign competitors as against those of our people who are manufacturing goods in this country. It seems to me to be a very illogical proceeding to take away, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken away, every Safeguarding Duty upon industry, in this country, when the combined revenue of the Safeguarding Duties that have been removed—

The CHAIRMAN: That is not in order.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I think, at any rate, it is germane to point out that, had the Safeguarding Duties been retained, they would have produced a revenue which would have covered this particular remission.

The CHAIRMAN: It might be in order on another stage of the Bill, but not on this occasion.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Having made my point, I will gladly withdraw it. This is primarily a tax upon petrol. That was the original intention of the right hon. Gentleman who imposed it. Despite denunciations hurled at him by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, by the President of the Board of Trade, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was introduced, it has proved to be a very profitable tax, and on the whole I think it has been, in its more modified form, a justifiable tax, in view of the vast increase in motor transport and slow combustion transport generally in this country. The very fact that in the initial proposal crude oil was omitted from the tax and that subsequently the paraffin tax was cut out, proves that it was in essence intended to be a petrol tax. In its modified form it did not hit these industries so hard, but to increase this tax, as is now proposed, will hit the manufacturing industries of this country very hard. It will amount to something like 70 per cent. in the case of certain industries, and in the circumstances, and in view of the very small amount of revenue which the right hon. Gentleman is called upon to sacrifice, I cannot think that he will refuse to accept the opinion which has been levelled at the tax from every part of the Committee and to agree to the Amendment.

Mr. HANNON: The position of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is the most illogical position that has been occupied by any Member on the Front Bench opposite for a long time. He himself has been the most ardent advocate of the exemption of turpentine from this tax in past Debates on Finance Bills, and here to-day, apparently, he comes into the House defending the position that the tax should now be imposed. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, on a former occasion in this House, very strongly resisted the imposition of this duty. But the main consideration affecting us to-day on this side is as to whether or not it is right that a tax should be imposed on a commodity coming into this country which is an essential part of a product that is engaging people in British industrial enterprise. We have in Birmingham a very large number of persons employed in the production of paints and varnishes; and am I to be told by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he, of all people, is to be a party to imposing a duty on a raw material coming into this country which is an essential part of a product from manufacturing which many men make their livelihood? That is an extraordinary position for the President of the Board of Trade to occupy. His main function in this House is to safeguard the progress and expansion of British enterprise in every possible way.
But when I think of the figure cut by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in defending this Bill, I begin to say that anything in the nature of logic in political argument has vanished from this House for all time, because on former occasions he has denounced, with all the vigour of his constructive intellect, a tax of this kind. Surely the arguments submitted by my hon. Friends on this side must appeal to the reason of the President of the Board of Trade. No more reasonable man exists. He is always amenable to sound, reasonable, cogent argument. I have never yet approached him on any subject and made an appeal to him with great reasoning power that he was not prepared to examine carefully and meticulously; and now, when he stands up at that Box, surely, realising how many people there are in this country whose future and position will be prejudiced by this tax, he will say: "No, I
shall be no party to the imposition of a duty which will imply the unemployment of vast numbers of workpeople." I sincerely hope that he will not make his position as President of the Board of Trade more liable to adverse criticism than it has been in the past, and that he will accept this Amendment.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: I am glad that on this occasion all three sides are united in appeals to the Government. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) rightly protested against this proposed increase, not because it is a protective tariff—it is not—but because it is a tax on a raw material, and further because it shows singularly plainly the great danger of these little taxes, whether they be Excise or Customs, protective or free trade taxes. You put a little bit on, and then, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants a little bit more, you increase your 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. and your 20 per cent. to 30 per cent.; and, in the words of the old adage, Facilis descensus Averni.
I want to draw the attention of the Government to the position of the wallpaper industry, which is a very important industry and one which at present is somewhat hard pressed by foreign competition. It is an industry which has shown singular resource and is thoroughly efficient. This industry employs, during the course of a year, no fewer than 250,000 gallons of white spirit, and a further increase of the tax on this raw material of this industry is going to be a very considerable obstacle in their way. At this time they are undoubtedly faced with a considerable amount of foreign competition, and during the last seven years, from 1923 to 1930, the imports into this country of foreign manufactured wallpaper have increased by something like £100,000. I am not complaining about that. I am not complaining about any competition that comes to us from abroad, but I am complaining that when we are attempting, with efficiency, to meet that foreign competition, we should have this artificial handicap placed upon us by a duty imposed upon our raw material. As a free trader, desiring that free traders should have freedom and should also, with efficiency, be given a fair chance, I appeal to the Government not to place upon this industry a further handicap by increasing this tax on their raw material.

Major LLEWELLIN: I want to add a few words, particularly with regard to the celluloid industry, because I happen to be in a position to know the full facts with regard to it. The facts of the case, some of which have been told to the Committee already by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton), are that this tax of 6d. amounts to as much as 17 per cent. of the European price of oil of turpentine to-day, that two tons of oil of turpentine are needed to make one ton of camphor, and that the camphor itself forms 20 per cent. of the finished weight of the celluloid article. These works, which have been referred to already, of the British Xylonite Company, took great pains to make themselves independent of the foreign supply of this raw material, which was liable to fluctuate excessively during the time of the Russo-Japanese War, and otherwise they were dependent for the synthetic article upon their rivals in Germany, so they made this factory down in Suffolk at considerable cost, and the result of the addition of 2d. to the tax this year is to make it more expensive, probably, to produce the camphor in this country than the price at which it can be produced on the Continent.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in this case. It may be difficult in all cases to exclude the oil of turpentine from this duty, because it may be difficult to differentiate and to see where it is really used as the raw material or where it is not, but that does not apply to the manufacture of camphor in this country, because at the present time there are daily in attendance at these works Inland Revenue officers, who can have the additional check of seeing that the oil which gets the exemption for which we ask in this Amendment gets to those works free of tax and, of course, is not used, as it would not be used by that firm, for anything other than the manufacture of this raw material. It will only make something like £1,300 difference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a year if the whole of the 6d. tax is taken off, but it makes a considerable difference in the price of camphor in the finished article—as much as £12 6s. 8d. per ton, or 8 per cent. of the whole price of the finished camphor—so that, with this high industrial competition that is now taking place between the rival manufacturers throughout the world, I ask the President of the
Board of Trade and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to see if they cannot do something to meet the case.
I only rise to instance this case of camphor as one where this particular firm, which I believe is the only celluloid manufacturing firm in this country, has taken such pains to make itself independent of the raw material that comes from abroad. It is a good case, as I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will realise. It is a case which he can quite easily check and upon which he can keep this check by means of the Inland Revenue officers who are already there, and I ask him to pay some consideration to this matter. After all, it cannot be said that it will upset the equilibrium of the Budget, because, as I understand, if the Land Tax proposals should go through, they themselves will severely upset the equilibrium of the Budget. I trust he will accept the Amendment.

Mr. REMER: It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackley (Mr. P. Oliver), but I agree with him in the remarks which he has just made in which he made an appeal for the industries of this country. In my constituency there are probably some of the largest wallpaper manufacturers in the United Kingdom. I have had a letter from them informing me that so large a quantity as 230,000 gallons of this spirit are used annually by them, and that it is very serious to have to face this increased burden on their business. It is particularly hard on them—and here possibly I may join issue with the hon. Member for Blackley—for this efficient industry was built up under the protection afforded to it by the Wrapping-paper Duty. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise what a serious charge this duty will be upon many industries which have to face serious competition, and I appeal to him to see if there are not some means by which this great charge can be removed. I am sure that he has not realised that over 35,000,000 gallons of this spirit are used for industrial purposes—my authority is an answer given to me by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—and that it means an additional £1,000,000 charged upon industry in the current year. When these figures are put before him, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter, if not now, at any rate, between
now and Report stage, in order to find if there are some means by which the industries which use the spirit can be safeguarded from the increased charge which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put upon them.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I want to say a word about the effect of this tax on the linoleum industry. It is a very important industry in my constituency, and the mass of my constituents in Lancaster are dependent on it. The President of the Board of Trade will no doubt say that this is such a small tax that the burden upon the industries that use turpentine is infinitesimal. Last week I saw a director of one of these concerns and discussed it with him. I ascertained that his company use 1,000 gallons of spirit a week, and that the additional charge will be in the nature of £8 a week—or about £400 a year—the salary of a Member of Parliament. In cases where industries are trying their utmost to get their costs down, and, as in this industry, have to face a considerable and growing foreign competition, such an additional burden should be avoided by the Government if it be at all possible.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: There is one point which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to remember. I appreciate the difficulty in trying to separate petrol used for one purpose and petrol used for another, but white spirit and turpentine cannot possibly be used for motor cars. It is a different thing altogether, and you cannot get a substitution of turpentine or white spirit and use it in place of petrol.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I have listened with very great care to all the speeches which have been made by hon. Members opposite, and the Committee will perhaps permit me in approaching these Amendments, to say a word or two with regard to the general course of our Debate. This raises the question of the exemption for specific use, and perhaps it will be convenient, especially as we are working under a Guillotine system, if I try as briefly as possible to cover each Amendment and to make my reply comprehensive, because the Committee will agree that our opportunities are limited in this part of the Debate to 7.30. The duties on the hydrocarbon oils were
introduced two or three years ago for a purpose with which the Committee are familiar, and they were designed to produce a revenue of about £16,600,000 in 1931–32. On the present occasion, the object of this addition of two-pence per gallon on the imported article is to secure an additional revenue of £7,500,000 this year and about £8,300,000 in a full financial year. We have already been perfectly candid with the Committee that, so delicately is this Budget balanced, that we are unable to sacrifice revenue in any Department of our proposals.
When we come to the two Amendments which we are discussing, the facts are plain and clear. On the Report stage of the Budget Resolution, it was shown that, if turpentine and white spirit were exempted, the loss in revenue would be about £500,000. If we confined the exemption to the present increase of 2d., the loss would be £166,000. In any case, whatever the loss, it is not one which can be afforded by the Government in existing conditions. When we approach the arguments which have been used this afternoon, we find that there is not the least doubt that there must be a great deal of common ground among us. This is plainly a duty on an imported commodity which is the raw material of great industries in this country, and, if we were free to apply our economic faith, I suppose that very few of us would recommend a tax of this kind. I think I can say, for what the argument is worth—I do not push it too far—that we did not begin it. It is true that we rely upon it, and I am not surprised at being charged with having voted against it in the past by hon. Members who supported it in the Division Lobby and made no protest against the then Chancellor of the Exchequer who had introduced this device.

Mr. HANNON: I divided the House on it and voted against it.

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not going to rely on an argument of that kind, because it is plainly a duty on raw material, and one which in happier circumstances we should all try to avoid. If, however, we are to raise £7,500,000 of revenue at the present time, it must be conceded that, taking the general scope of this duty and the fact that the great bulk of it falls upon petrol which
is used for motor cars, there is probably hardly an industrial sphere in which in existing conditions it could be imposed with less damage to the national interest. The difficulty turns on the series of Amendments which are designed to secure relief for specific purposes. That, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the past has always had to resist. An hon. Member who spoke on the other side was wrong in suggesting that the original intention was to confine this to a duty on petrol. It began and remained for all practical purposes a duty on hydrocarbon oils, and the only exemptions which have been made up to this point have been in regard to lifeboats and fishing vessels, both of which are exceptional in character and do not raise the administrative difficulties which would be raised in the concessions which are proposed this afternoon.
When we pass to the actual industries which are involved, I am bound to say that I hardly think a very strong case, taking them as a whole, can be established. Much of the argument which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) and other hon. Members, related to the paint and varnish trades. Taking the general course of our industry in this country, it is undeniable that, while those trades may have suffered because of the general depression, they have probably suffered to a less extent than the great majority of other industries. In any event, when we pass to the influence of the cost of this duty on a gallon of paint, we find, even with the full weight of the 6d., that it does not amount to more than 2d. or 3d. on a gallon of paint selling at anything between 7s. 6d. and 20s. or more. I know that in a newspaper called the "Oil and Colour Trades Journal," there was a reference to a paint sold at a price as low as 3s. a gallon, but I am advised by what appears to be a competent authority that anything round about that price would not deserve the name of paint. So we may proceed on a rather higher figure, and it is clear that that addition to the cost is comparatively trifling, and cannot be seriously pleaded either, perhaps, in the national circumstances, or in the circumstances of this particular industry and
the other trades for which an appeal has been addressed this afternoon.
I cannot be moved, impressive as have been the speeches on the other side, so far as that industry is concerned, but I am willing to admit, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton), that there is a more impressive case where he is concerned. He addressed his arguments to me with great tenderness, and I only wish I could meet the point, but the difficulties are very great indeed. I am not sure that I can admit that I was in the wrong as regards the synthetic camphor which is imported and the competition with the natural camphor which comes from Japan. I do not think that there is any difference between my hon. Friend and myself as to the facts. Broadly speaking, I suggested on the last occasion that, while of course there was competition with imported synthetic camphor, as it is called, perhaps the bulk of the competition was with the imported natural camphor from Japan. I cannot vouch for these figures, because I am speaking from memory, but I can say that they are substantially correct; we import about £20,000 worth of synthetic camphor and about £80,000 worth of natural camphor; so that, taking the trade in bulk, the camphor which my hon. Friend has particularly in mind is perhaps about one-fifth of the whole.
5.0 p.m.
If it be true, however, as seems likely, that the British product of synthetic camphor is about £20,000, it is unquestionable that there is strenuous competition. We made it perfectly clear that if it were possible to take outside this duty these industrial processes, and more particularly the industrial processes where competition is severe, we would be only too glad to do it. Since this Amendment was last moved, I have made very careful inquiry on this point. I ask the Committee to believe that the administrative difficulties are very considerable, and that it would be virtually impossible to draw a dividing line among the industrial uses, or, rather, the non-road uses, to which these imported oils are put in existing conditions. I admit that the revenue which would be lost by the concession in respect of making synthetic camphor might not be very considerable, but it would be much larger if other industrial processes
were taken into account, and the loss would speedily rise to £500,000. I must observe in passing that the case for other industries is even stronger, or at all events it is very strong, as compared with the one company, or virtually one company, which is interested in this synthetic camphor. And not only that, for the moment we embark upon relief in respect of non-road uses all the information at my disposal in those very impressive briefs which are available for the use of every Government shows that the cost of the concession would soon rise from £500,000 to £1,700,000—that is, if we were to take the non-road elements out of the scope of the tax. I am afraid that I must adhere to these arguments this afternoon. The case submitted by my hon. Friends opposite is in many particulars a strong one, but, on the other hand, there is the urgent call for revenue, which has dictated the reply by which I must now ask the Committee to abide.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I cannot help thinking that the speech of the President of the Board of Trade is a rather bad omen for the future progress of this Debate, because in point of fact he really admits the justice of the case which has been made against him, and then proceeds to say that the Budget is so precariously balanced that he cannot give way in a single item, however small. That will invest the subsequent Debates on other parts of the Budget with a very considerable atmosphere of unreality. If we cannot get a small concession like this right at the beginning it is going to

be pretty hopeless later on. It is a criticism against the Budget as a whole if it be the fact that it has been balanced so exactly that the slightest pin-prick will be fatal to it; on the face of it that makes it a bad Budget. For that the Government have themselves to blame. If this is a tax which cannot be defended in principle, and the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to defend it in principle, there are other taxes which can be defended in principle, and it was surely not beyond the wit of man, and especially of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all the technical and expert advice which he has behind him, to find some means of providing himself with a balance of revenue so that he would be in a position to consider urgent appeals such as have been addressed to him from every side of the Committee by Members who have had representations made to them from many different industries. I am not aware that my own constituency is particularly interested in any one of these industries, and I am not speaking from any particular industrial point of view. This is a point of principle affecting the taxation of the raw material of an industry, and it ought to have received very much greater consideration than has been shown by the Treasury Bench this afternoon, and as at present advised I cannot see any reason in justice which should prevent me from voting for the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 196.

Division No. 277.]
AYES.
[5.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fielden, E. B.


Albery, Irving James
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Alien, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Aske, Sir Robert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Ganzonl, Sir John


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Chapman, Sir S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Beaumont, M. W.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gower, Sir Robert


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Colville, Major D. J.
Grace, John


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Cooper, A. Duff
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Boothby, R. J. G.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cranborne, Viscount
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Boyce, Leslie
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hanbury, C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Buchan, John
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Harris, Percy A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Campbell, E. T.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Ferguson, Sir John
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Somerset, Thomas


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Hurd, Percy A.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Ramsbotham, H.
Thomson, Sir F.


Inksip, Sir Thomas
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Knox, Sir Alfred
Remer, John R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Warrender, Sir Victor


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
White, H. G.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Marjoribanks, Edward
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Meller, R. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Simms, Major-General J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)



Muirhead, A. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Smithers, Waldron
Captain Margesson and Sir George Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Glassey, A. E.
McShane, John James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff Cannock)
Gossling, A. G.
Malone, C. L. Estrange (N'thampton)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
March, S.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Gray, Milner
Marshall, Fred


Alpass, J. H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mathers, George


Angell, Sir Norman
Grentell, D. R, (Glamorgan)
Matters, L. W.


Arnott, John
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Messer, Fred


Ayles, Walter
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Middleton, G.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mills, J. E.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Montague, Frederick


Barnes, Alfred John
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Batey, Joseph
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Morley, Ralph


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Benton, G.
Hayes, John Harvey
Mort, D. L.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Bowen, J. W.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oldfield, J. R.


Bromfield, William
Herriotts, J.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brooke, W.
Hicks, Ernest George
Palin, John Henry


Brothers, M.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Perry, S. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hoffman, P. C.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Burgess, F. G.
Hopkin, Daniel
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pole, Major D. G.


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Potts, John S.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Chater, Daniel
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Romeril, H. G.


Cluse, W. S.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Rowson, Guy


Compton, Joseph
Kinley, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Knight, Holford
Sanders, W. S.


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sandham, E.


Dallas, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sawyer, G. F.


Dalton, Hugh
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Scurr, John


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lawrence, Susan
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leach, W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sherwood, G. H.


Duncan, Charles
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shield, George William


Ede, James Chuter
Lees, J.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Edmunds, J. E.
Logan, David Gilbert
Shillaker, J. F.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longbottom, A. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Egan, W. H.
Longden, F.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Elmley, Viscount
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Freeman, Peter
Lunn, William
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gibbins, Joseph
McElwee, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gill, T. H.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gillett, George M.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sorensen, R.




Stamford, Thomas W.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Strauss, G. R.
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Watkins, F. C.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
West, F. R.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Thurtle, Ernest
Westwood, Joseph
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Tinker, John Joseph
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)



Tout, W. J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Townend, A. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)



Vaughan, David
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I beg to move in page 1, line 21, to leave out the word "sixpence," and to insert instead thereof the word "fivepence."
The effect of my Amendment, if carried, will be to increase the tax on motor spirit by one penny only instead of by 2d., as provided for in the Finance Bill. After the speech which has been made by the President of the Board of Trade I have not very great hopes that I shall succeed in my object. It seems extraordinary that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade not only attacked the tax in unmeasured terms when it was first introduced, but also voted against it. Now that they find themselves in office, not only do they support the tax which they formerly condemned, but they propose actually to increase it. I think most hon. Members on this side are in favour of the principle of a tax on motor spirit, and the only thing we question is whether the tax is not getting too high. After all, it is a great mistake to make a tax so high that it decreases the productivity of that tax, and, although that point has not yet been reached, there seems to be a growing tendency in that direction. For some time past we have seen the number of motor cars registered increasing month by month, but the number last month was fewer than in the corresponding month of last year, and I think that is a distinct indication that this tax has become so high as to interfere with its productivity.
The tax on motor spirit is very high indeed. The cost is 1s. 3d. per gallon for motor spirit of a good quality, and 6d. of that cost is represented by the tax, and 9d. is the actual cost of the commodity. That represents a tax of nearly 75 per cent. on the price of the article. In former years a tax of that kind would have been looked upon as being absolutely prohibitive, and there is no imported article at the present time which bears a tax of anything like 75 per cent. No doubt the President of the Board of Trade
will tell us that the price of petrol today is lower than it actually was two or three years ago. That is perfectly true, but the low price of the article is entirely due to artificial over-production in many quarters of the globe. That over-production is not likely to go on at the same rate, and once consumption overtakes production there is a great danger that we may see a rise in the price of motor spirit, and the result of that would be very serious to this flourishing industry. For these reasons, I suggest that 6d. per gallon as a tax on motor spirit is much too high, and that we are running the risk of reducing the consumption of motor spirit.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: I hope the President of the Board of Trade will stick to his guns and make the duty 6d. No one has urged with greater eloquence than the President of the Board of Trade the absolute necessity of restoring the coal trade to increased prosperity, and very eminent individuals on all sides have told us that there is only one way to restore the coal trade, and that is to get all the by-products out of coal that are to be found in it and find a market for them. I am not going to deviate from the strict line of order, but I wish to say, here and now, is as few words as I possibly can, that I have a rather important pronouncement to make which I think will be of interest to hon. Members. My pronouncement is that there is a movement in Scotland to bring this great attempt to produce oil from coal to a successful issue.
How is it that all these important people, these great scientists, after spending during the last 10 years £1,000,000 in experiments, have not succeeded in their task? I propose to tell the Committee the reason. It is because they have devoted their scientific attention to one side of the problem only. It is an easy thing to get oil from coal. I do not say that any fool can do it. We have been told that there are 200 processes by which oil can be obtained from coal. But what is
the use of obtaining 30 or 40 gallons of crude oil from a ton of coal if the coal alone costs 15s.? These great scientists have never yet said to themselves: "We must obtain from a ton of coal on the spot and at the same time everything that is contained in that particular coal."
We can obtain oil successfully from coal so long as this 6d. duty remains, and I should like the President of the Board of Trade to say that so long as the present Government remain in office, and so long as he exercises any influence with the Labour party, he will always say that the 6d. duty shall remain. That is what those individuals want who are now carrying out this great experiment of getting oil from coal. As coal is burnt now, the gas from the coal goes up the chimney. We have to get the gas at the same time as we get the oil from the same coal, because you can obtain from a ton of coal 10,000 cubic feet of gas which you can sell at 8d. or 9d. per 1,000 feet. That can only be done by taking a very wide view of this question, and, if you have a market for the gas, you would have to buy up all the gasworks in the district, and lay down pipe lines to convey the gas to them.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member promised that he would not develop his argument too widely, but he is now going too wide.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: I have been a Member of this House during four Parliaments, and I have never opened my mouth on this subject before because I thought that it looked like pushing a particular project in which I have an interest. I want to say here that that project has got beyond the stage of asking for money, and I want to tell hon. Members what I think will come into operation within the next two or three months. The abstraction of oil from coal is something which is likely to make the coal trade prosperous once more. We must do everything to see that this duty of 6d. is retained, and that is the whole point, because so long as it is there there is a revenue of 10s. which can be got out of a ton of coal. We can produce all the other by-products at the same time and in the same place and make the whole thing a great success.
You pulled me up, Mr. Chairman, when I began to talk about the gasworks, but that is only part of the scheme, and
with this protection, this certain market of 10s. per ton, we can smelt a cheap iron ore in Scotland—I am speaking of what I know—a low grade black bandstone which is to be found in millions of tons in Lanarkshire. That is ready to be smelted with the residue of this same coal, which is coke, in coke ovens, and turned into a cheap iron ore, which will be a cheaper product than can be imported from Belgium or Bombay. I have given hon. Members the outline of what is possible if this duty remains. The President of the Board of Trade is doing a thing to-day far better than he knows.

Mr. HANNON: It is a pure accident.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: I would like to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is now on a good thing; in fact, a better thing than Cameronian was the other day. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to stick to the duty which he has proposed, and I hope he will not allow himself to be deterred by the speeches of hon. Members below the Gangway. Let the right hon. Gentleman stick to his guns, and then we shall be able to say that two Members representing the City of Edinburgh have done something to put Scotland once more on its feet.

Major ELLIOT: The Opposition, of course, is in a certain amount of difficulty here, because, owing to the Motion which was recently carried by the House, and which, of course, I do not criticise in any way, we are compelled to discuss the Budget in one day. The subjects which we have to discuss to-day are the Budget; the revenue which we have to raise for the year's finance is covered by this day's proceedings. Thereafter we shall pass on to other Clauses, which it would be out of order to discuss. We owe this to the votes of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and I hope that they will justify it to themselves. This is, of course, a special interest of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and particularly of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean), whom I am glad to see in his place, because this is pure Protection. It is a revenue tariff, and a revenue tariff with 100 per cent. Protection; and this is the tax which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have gagged the House to push through before 7.30 to-night.
It is hardly for me to object to this. We put down this Amendment with the object of drawing the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, with the object of drawing the Secretary for Mines, and with the object of drawing Members of the Government generally. They needed very little drawing; they have tumbled forward to assure us that this is a Protective duty, imposed for that purpose, and that it is for that purpose that they are supporting it this afternoon. We challenge hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. Will they divide the Committee against this piece of Protection this afternoon. or will they support this first step in a revenue tariff. This is not the last of the Protective Budgets. This is the first Protective Budget; this is the first step in the revenue tariff, and it is being put on by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, of course because they are looking for revenue; but it is put on, according to the description of the President of the Board of Trade, not in pursuance of his own theories, but of those of someone else. There is only one other party in the House, so that it must be in deference to the economic views of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. The patient oxen are not merely dragging the cart now, but they know that they are pulling it.
This raises a very large piece of the year's revenue. The only increase in the year's revenue comes from this tax. The tax is to raise over £24,000,000 in a single year, and it is to provide an increase from £15,900,000 to £24,100,000. It is, of course, the easiest thing in the world to twit hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite with inconsistency, but no one bothers about that nowadays; they have eaten so many of their words that a few more mean very little. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course, was in the forefront of the accusers of this tax. He said:
I have always been opposed to a tax on petrol,
when it was imposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and he gave the true bureaucrat's reason, for he said:
I know the Revenue do not approve of such a tax.
Of course it was in opposition to the will of the permanent Department, and of course that seemed to the right hon. Gentleman, even in Opposition, to be a conclusive argument against putting on such a tax. He went on to justify his argument on principle. He said:
What would be thought about putting a tax on coal, the raw material of every manufacturing industry?
Of course, that does not appeal to the President of the Board of Trade. He thinks nothing of raising the price of coal. In fact, he brought in and carried through this House a Bill for that purpose. He is now putting a tax upon what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer then described as:
The raw material essential—and increasingly so—for a vast number of industries in this country.
We have now the authority of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and below the Gangway for putting a tax upon a raw material which is increasingly essential for a vast number of industries in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer further went on to say:
Merely from the political point of view I would welcome this proposal."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 25th April, 1928; col. 935, Vol. 216.]
We can repeat that declaration with redoubled force. When the Bill was before the House for Second Reading the present Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with the question whether this petrol was used merely for pleasure cars or for the purpose of trade. He said:
I should be very much surprised if less than one-half of the petrol consumed is not used for what we might call trade or commercial purposes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1928; col. 40, Vol. 218.]
Every argument that can be brought against this protective tariff on a raw material has been stultified this afternoon in the mouths of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, by their own executive's action in bringing forward this duty. Of course, when this tax was attacked, there was some of the usual rhodomontade which is indulged in by Members of the Socialist party. One of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues said, on the Second Reading of the Bill:
The taxation is to be levied upon the consumer, but it will be levied in the main on the working classes of the country. The Petrol Tax is going to be paid, and is being
paid by the working people, the poor people, and it is going into the pockets, not of the producers and capitalists, but into the pockets of the big financiers, who to-day have these depressed industries under their thumb."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1928; cols. 111–2, Vol. 218.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer now puts that tariff up by 50 per cent. So much for his honesty and consistency of purpose in the political sense. But he went further. He argued that he did not like this tax, and he went so far as to say that he would regard this addition of 2d. as having a claim for remission. It is true that he qualified that by the statement that that would Be when the Government were in a position to remit taxation, which puts it on to the Greek Kalends, or possibly a week after that.
The Secretary for Mines, whose electoral position is concerned in the matter, had no such scruples. He went down to West Lothian, and had an interview with a newspaper representative. I do not know whether it was purely by accident, or whether there had been some collusion in the matter, but they happened to meet. This was before the Budget, and the Secretary for Mines was able to adumbrate some of the Budget proposals. No doubt it was done in perfect solemnity and good faith, but still it is an odd thing to happen to meet a newspaper representative and to be able to adumbrate these proposals. It was he who claimed the credit for this increase of duty, and in Scotland the case made by the Secretary for Mines is not that of a revenue tariff, but that of the protective side of the revenue tariff. He said:
I cannot say what the proposals are which have been placed before the Government, but they are well known to those in the industry. I am hopeful that the proposals will be acceptable. If they are, it will be possible for the industry to carry on until world prices rise, thus enabling the industry to maintain itself.
Cannot that argument be used for wheat? Cannot that argument be used for iron and steel? Cannot that argument be used for a hundred other depressed industries in this country? They do not happen to be represented in this House by a Cabinet Minister, and, consequently, proposals acceptable to them cannot be placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and communicated to the Press some weeks beforehand with the same authority as might otherwise have
been the case. The Secretary for Mines, when the Budget proposals had been disclosed, went back to his constituency, and in Broxburn he said:
Having learned their opinion, he made certain representations to the Government, and last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the Petrol Tax from 4d. to 6d.
That is rather an interesting declaration to have from a member of the Cabinet. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not a member of the Cabinet!"] He seems to be better. He is a member of the Government, and he got his proposals accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which not all members of the-Cabinet can do. It may be said that he is merely a member of the Government fighting a difficult constituency, and fighting hard for his seat. Not at all. This argument is now brought forward by the Government Press. I have here a sheet from the current issue of "Forward," which, no doubt, the President of the Board of Trade will recognise as the leading, and I might say the only, Government Press in Scotland-When it learned of the proposal to suggest a reduction of this duty, it got quite tearful and hysterical about it. The Scottish shale oil industry, it said, was threatened with extinction. Threatened by what? A reduced tax on imported oil. There is nothing about the Government's threat to reduce the tax on imported glass; there is nothing about the Government's threat to reduce the tax on imported lace. Not at all. Members of the Government do not represent those constituencies. But imported oil must be a very serious matter.
It is at a time like this, and on such a struggling industry, that the Tory party proposes to reduce the tax upon foreign competition, and make that competition easier, and collapse prices and ruin the industry.
Nothing stronger has ever been printed by the "Morning Poet"; nothing more vigorous has ever been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). Here is the gospel, the pure milk of the word, printed—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, oil!"] I used the Scriptural reference, which is not so familiar to hon. Members opposite as it is to the President of the Board of Trade. "Forward" says:
If foreign produced natural oil comes in here at a lower tax, then Scottish prices must further fall, and the industry be finally
ruined. Strange, is it not, that it is the Labour Government and the Free Trade party which is for keeping on the tax on imported oils—although as a means of raising revenue—while the Tariff Tory Protectionist party is moving to allow easier and cheaper import terms to foreign oil and ruin the home product? We will remember this one!
We shall remember it also, and we shall bring it to the notice of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway as well as of those on the Government Benches, and let the House know that the Liberal party gagged the House in order to put through the whole Budget on one day, and the advantage that the Government are taking to put through a piece of perfectly straightforward Protection, justified by Protectionist arguments, and backed by the Secretary for Mines as a proposal which he has been able to get accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to save the Scottish shale oil industry. On these proposals we do not propose to comment further. Naturally, we are not going into the Division Lobby to divide against this proposal. Not at all. If anyone challenges the Government, we shall be only too pleased to reinforce them, and we should welcome, and more than welcome, a declaration of the Government, not merely from the mouths of its Ministers, but in the Division Lobby. This is a proposal which they bring before the House, and if any hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway like to challenge it we shall, at least respect them for having for once stuck up for their principles; and it will be perfectly safe for them to do so, because, as we are going to support the Government, they may vote against it with a perfectly easy mind.

Major COLVILLE: I should like to make quite clear the Protective value of this tax, because I am familiar with the manufacturing position. This is an oil age, when the increasing use of oil for the Navy, for the Mercantile Marine, for road transport, and many other purposes, is becoming evident. My hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) has dealt with the future developments which I feel confident will take place in the distillation of oil from coal, but I am going to deal with the actual oil industry of this country which is in existence now. There is only one part of Great Britain, namely,
the Lothians of Scotland, where oil is produced in large quantities. The industry was started 80 years ago. It is the mother of all oil industries. The first refineries that were put down in the United States were copied from our Scottish ones many years ago. At the present time, approximately 6,000 men are employed in that industry. They live in about 25 villages, the inhabitants of some of those villages consisting entirely of oil workers and their families. The wages bill amounts to something in the neighbourhood of £17,000 a week, and the production of crude oil is 42,000,000 gallons in the year.
That crude oil, when refined, yields certain products. The most important of them from our point of view to-day, and, indeed, a very important one from the point of view of the country generally, is motor spirit. That industry has been through very hard and difficult times. Its position in 1928 was critical. In 1929, the Budget contained a tax of 4d. a gallon on imported petrol, from which the home product was exempt, and that enabled the industry to carry on. New plant was laid down for the purpose of taking advantage of this duty and of carrying on the process known as cracking the heavier oils for motor spirit. Some of that plant is just coming into operation now, and some is already in operation. That tax prevented thousands of men from losing their employment. Since that time, there has been a heavy fall in world prices of oil. From Russia we are faced with very fierce competition, I believe due to the deliberate policy of that Government. Foreign oil products coming into the country have placed the industry in very grave danger again. The Government now come forward with the proposal of a further tax of 2d. Even that will not remove the danger. Only last week, the chairman of the company announced that a further group of refineries would be affected, and would possibly be closed down. None the less, it eased the position to some extent.
Other steps will have to be taken. I believe that, not only in the interests of employment, but of national defence, the one part of the British Islands that can produce oil on a large scale should be safeguarded, and I intend to fight for it. On this issue we must recollect that that 2d. is of some assistance. My hon. and
gallant Friend has said it is not intended to take a Division on the subject. If it had been, I should have found myself along with those other Casabiancas of Free Trade, the President of the Board of Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and many others that I could name in the protectionist Lobby. In spite of all their previous utterances, I should have welcomed their conversion to what is a cardinal point in Conservative policy. The time will come when the Government will recognise that our national industries must be protected and employment maintained. We shall not go about that in the same haphazard way that the right hon. Gentleman does, choosing the thing that will yield him the most revenue without considering its effects. On this occasion I am satisfied that it is necessary that this industry should have protection, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will come out boldly like a man and defend it on good, sound protectionist grounds.

Sir W. BRASS: After the speech that we had from the right hon. Gentleman recently, we on this side may feel safe that the Government have no intention of doing what is suggested in this Amendment. As we have had no word from the Liberal Free Traders, I, as an old Free Trader myself, now converted to Protection, should like to say a few words from the Free Trade point of view. I think we should look into this matter and balance it up very carefully, and see where the advantage lies. We have two points to remember. We have the great coal industry, which we on this side are naturally anxious to protect, and we welcome the increase in the duty, because it gives an increased protection to the manufacturers of benzol motor spirit. But we must also remember that we have other industries as well, and this, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will tell us, is a tax on their raw material, because petrol is used to a very large extent in the transportation of commodities from one place to another. I want to make a proposal to the right hon. Gentleman. If we could split it up, if we could have our protection for petrol for pleasure purposes only, the ordinary transport trade would be fairly treated by having a reduction of the tax, and we should get our added protection for the manufacturers of benzol.
There is another point I should like to make. We import a very large amount of oil from Russia. We were told at the last Election that, if only we voted Socialist, our unemployment would be reduced very considerably, because a very large extra trade would be done with Russia. We do a very large amount of trade in oil with Russia at present, but it is the wrong way round. What happens is that oil from Russia comes into the country, and the balance of trade is all on the wrong side. If the Government would consider some form of barter between Russia and this country—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is departing from the Amendment.

Sir W. BRASS: I thought that, in talking about petrol, we might possibly suggest something which would help the trade of the country. I have balanced this out very carefully in my own mind, both from my old views as a Free Trader and from my new views as a Protectionist, and I have come definitely to the conclusion that, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot split it up as I have suggested between industry and pleasure motoring, I shall support the 6d. because it gives increased protection for our own people in the manufacture of benzol.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman moved the Amendment, I was innocent enough to believe that it was seriously intended but, as the Debate developed, it become quite clear that hon. Members opposite were engaged in a little healthy propaganda and that in due course the Amendment would not be pressed to a Division. There was, of course, the very dramatic speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) and the very kindly words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman). My instructions are not to become involved in these apparent differences between hon. Members opposite but, first of all, to resist the Amendment and, in the second place, to stick to the facts. That on this occasion is easy. What is proposed is, of course, a modification of the increase of 2d. in this duty, which increase was designed to yield £7,500,000 of additional revenue in the present financial year and £8,300,000 in a full financial year. Obviously the
effect of the Amendment, if it had been seriously intended, would have been to reduce the yield of that revenue in the current year by £3,750,000 and the Budget would have been in deficit to that extent. So that on revenue grounds right away it would be quite impossible to entertain this Amendment. Then, also, I thought that hon. Members opposite, having failed in wiping out certain parts of this duty intended to modify the duty as a whole, because that is really the proposal to the extent of a penny, on the ground that there would be rather less increase in the price of petrol which, after all, is 97 per cent. of the oil taxed, than was likely to be the case under a duty of this kind. But, on the question of price, there is no argument in existing conditions because I believe, even with the increase in the duty, the price has fallen by a penny in recent times, and is lower than at any point since April, 1928, with the exception of certain weeks just before the Budget was introduced. So that on price there is no very strong argument in existing conditions.
6.0 p.m.
I must invade the other controversy which hon. Members have raised. They have said to the Government, "Here you are engaged in increasing the protective duty which we introduced in 1928." But it was not defended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1928 on that ground. I have frequently to remind the House that this was a general duty on hydro-carbon oils for the express purpose of providing the wherewithal to recover the rating relief. It was defended as a tax on one form of enterprise in order to assist, to the extent of 75 per cent., the relief to hard-pressed productive industry. At that time the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was not to the same extent the tariffist that he is at present. He held very strongly by what purported to be Free Trade faith, so that the memories of hon. Members opposite must be very short when they invade this discussion with an argument of that kind.
There is one point to which I must refer. It is better always to be perfectly candid with the House in these matters. This is undeniably a tax on certain forms of industrial enterprise, and one which we should like to see disappear if that were financially
practical politics. But inasmuch as it is a duty on imported oil at the rate of 6d. a gallon, it will give a form of protection—that is undeniable—to such enterprise in the manufacture of oils as exists in this country. We are hardly at the stage of regarding that as a very large Protectionist proposition because, out of 1,000,000,000 gallons, only about 4 per cent. is our own production. I think the smaller part of that is shale oil, and the great bulk is the benzol production. But there is, of course, a great deal of enterprise and research into the production of oil from coal by a variety of processes, right down to hydrogenation itself, which is now under review. So far not all these processes have succeeded in attaining a commercial basis. Whether that will be done in future is not for me now to say, but there will be a certain stimulus to research, and perhaps a certain encouragement to existing enterprise, while the duty remains at 6d. a gallon. Beyond that, I think, I am not expected to go. We cannot, of course, sacrifice the revenue, and I think that in taking an attitude of this kind, I am able on this occasion not only to defend the position of the Government, but to reconcile the warring forces of the Opposition.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman comes to me as a very great disappointment. It is not that he has not put his point very clearly, because he certainly always does that, but he has gone a very long way this afternoon towards destroying my faith in human nature. I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as one of the most honest politicians we have in this country, and I feel that it is a deplorable thing that we should see the dropping away of this very fine character. He has made a series of very persistent speeches in the past in favour of Free Trade, but he has never been one of the supporters of the more rigid forms of that theory which has always been professed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no doubt that there have been signs hitherto of a certain amount of the infection which he got from other quarters on the Coal Bill which he produced last year. It is one of the most glaring aspects of Protection in existence in any country of the
world to-day. That was, so to speak, a primary lapse. He might have been excused upon that ground as a first offender, but now we find that the virus which is infecting his blood is producing an epidemic as far as he is concerned, and we should have liked a much better explanation than that which he has given this afternoon as to the change of view he is expecting in the House.
None of the arguments he has put forward justifies the line he has taken up. It is true that the Revenue requires the amount of money which he seeks to derive from this particular duty, but as a theoretical Free Trader there was a very easy way for him to get out of the difficulty into which he was placed, because he had only to do what other Free Traders have done in the past, namely, put an excise duty on the home product. But, apparently, he has not had the courage to do that. He has explained that the home product has been, up to now, very small, but does he indicate that if the hydrogenation proposition, to which he has referred, succeeds and the production becomes large, then the duty would be taken off or an excise duty put upon the home product? Are we to understand that? The right hon. Gentleman indicates dissent. Accordingly, perhaps, we may hope that in the course of time the Government benches will give vocal support to explaining this theory of Protection which seems to have affected them with regard to some of our products at least. It is very difficult to understand why this duty should be put on to-day and an excise duty not levied, while at the same time duties which were producing a revenue on such things as cutlery, lace and home-made gloves should be taken off. There can be no consistent ground at all for taking off the duties from those particular articles, especially when you consider that every time a duty has been taken off, an increase has been created in unemployment in this country and people who otherwise would be able to work at their particular jobs have been driven on to the streets.
Perhaps this Debate will give a great chance to the Liberal party. In view of the theories which they advocate, I anticipate that they will go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment this afternoon. It is a great opportunity for
them. It is an occasion on which they can be assured that they cannot possibly carry the Amendment, and therefore they will be entirely safe. At any rate, this Debate, whatever else it may do, will have a very educative effect in the country, and I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman, fertile as he is in argument, has been able to find no good reason by which he can reconcile his Free Trade theories with the action he has taken at the present time.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was a complete vindication of the Petrol Duty. He justified it, and the Committee see how justified it is from the revenue and from the Protection point of view. Six years' experience of this House has been more than sufficient to remove all the illusions and most of the enthusiasms which I cherished when I first entered politics as a young man. Therefore I was not a bit surprised when the President of the Board of Trade used arguments exactly contrary to all those used by himself, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for five years when my right hon. Friend was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that he must have forgotten some of the things which they said about the duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was an iniquitous duty and that you might as well tax coal as oil. There were most bitter assaults made upon the duty from all quarters of the Opposition. I do not know of any taxation proposal which aroused greater animosity from the Socialist party than the Petrol Duty.
Since assuming office, the Government have in effect put a duty upon coal and increased the duty upon oil which was imposed by my right hon. Friend. It is an ironical fact that the Socialist party should, to my personal knolwedge in Scotland, be making the very most of the protective arguments produced in favour of this particular duty. The right hon. Gentleman has given no explanation of the extraordinary performances of the Minister of Mines in his own constituency. He goes there weeks before the Budget and gives more than a hint that they find from the protective point of view one proposal of the Budget particularly satisfactory, and
after the Budget is introduced, he says to them, "What did I tell you? You should be thankful that I am your Member of Parliament and that I have such a powerful influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I simply tell him to increase the Petrol Duty by 2d., and therefore give an additional protection in favour of your industry, and he does it." Every argument which he used in that speech, which was fully reported in the local Press, was a protective argument. The right hon. Gentleman is bound to accept responsibility for the public statement of a member of his own Government. The right hon. Gentleman, in the two speeches which he has delivered this afternoon, has given no explanation as to the extraordinary action of the Government in taxing raw material as against manufactured goods. We all know that they are becoming converted to Protection. We understand that it is an inevitable process which is going on throughout the country and in every political party, but it is strange to begin by increasing the taxation upon raw material. Why has the right hon. Gentleman gone out of his way to increase this tax on raw material and at the same time to remove all duties on manufactured goods? The right hon. Gentleman has made no attempt to define this astonishing action and this amazing preference for a raw material, nevertheless, we on this side of the Committee welcome the increasing conversion of the Government to the general principle of Protection. I am encouraged by the additional increase of 2d. on the Petrol Duty in the hope that the President of the Board of Trade will still press forward and inform the Soviet Government, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) suggested, that unless they "buy my herring" in larger quantities, he will put such a duty upon petrol, that they will not be able to send it here.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after the word "oils," to insert the words:
but including light oils used for agricultural purposes.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told us that his instructions, or, as I would prefer to call
it, the advice which had been given to him was that he should not become involved too much in the Free Trade-Protectionist arguments, which might go on here this afternoon. I think that he will agree that the Amendment which I am putting before the Committee is, at any rate, a very simple and straightforward one, and one which will meet with a great deal of sympathy from all sides. The condition of agriculture is too well known to need any wide elaboration. Members on all sides of the Committee have spoken from time to time of the depressed condition of agriculture, and they know that any further burden which is placed upon the farmer at the present time is bound to react, and to react very seriously, upon one of the most depressed industries in this country. The farmer is struggling because he hopes that there will be a change in future fiscal policy which will enable him to make a living and to carry on his business. He is struggling not only very often at a loss, but under an intolerable burden of competition and under conditions which producers of agricultural products in other countries have no experience. Certain Members of the party opposite have on previous occasions supported this Amendment in previous Finance Bill discussions and I hope therefore that it will appeal to them to-day.
It is not possible to give a definite statement, from this side of the Committee at any rate, of what the cost of this concession would be. I have done my utmost to try to get even approximate figures, but they are not available I fancy, outside the records of Government Departments. I think that it will be realised however that in comparison with the large number of millions to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred in replying to a previous Amendment upon the Paper, this concession, at any rate, is a very small matter. The farmers really are unfairly treated. As far as agricultural tractors are concerned, there is really no use of the roads at all. They pass from field to field only upon the road, otherwise their work is entirely in the field. As far as lorries and trailers are concerned—and a good many of the latter are used by farmers—a certain amount of the work is not carried on upon the road. When it is remembered that in the first place this tax was put on for the purpose largely of assisting
in road development, it will be realised that the farmer in paying the same tax as anybody else is really being rather unfairly treated. It has been said in this House from time to time that the farmer gets a benefit in connection with the licencing duty upon his vehicle, but I would point out that as far as the lighter vehicles are concerned, the concession amounts to very little, if anything at all. It does not in any way compare with the extra burden he will have to bear as a result of the 2d. extra on the petrol used for agricultural purposes. There are not only tractors, but stationary engines and lorries to be taken into consideration. It will be realised that the farmer has no option, in these days when the use of horses on the roads is more and more difficult, but to extend the use of motor vehicles and therefore to extend the burden which he is required to bear.
I do not wish to deal with the depressed condition of agriculture as a result of the importation of foreign goods, because it would not be in order here, but it is fair to remind the Committee that the Government allow millions of pounds worth of bacon, eggs and other agricultural produce to come from abroad and flood this country, and it is unjust that in those circumstances the farmer should be forced to bear an additional burden at a time when he is doing his level best to secure new trade and to retain the small portion of the home market which he has so far been able to keep in his own hands. I noticed in the "Times," I think it was, not long ago, a statement by the general secretary of the Commercial Motor Users' Association to the effect that the combined motor vehicle and petrol tax meant 15 per cent. on the operating cost of a vehicle, 60 per cent. on the wages and 12½ per cent. on the total cost of the business. That has reference to the whole range of running commercial motor vehicles, and not only vehicles for agriculture, but it shows the heavy cost to the trade of these tax burdens. While it might be impossible to give the concession that has been asked for to-day in regard to agriculture to the payers of the Petrol Duty as a whole, surely it is possible for the Government to take into consideration the special plight of agriculture and do something to enable the farmer to fight the competition which exists in his very depressed industry.
I would like to give a concrete illustration of the way that the Petrol Duty operates in connection with the agricultural industry, and I give it because it has been sent definitely and directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer from my constituency. In that constituency there is a concern which trades in corn, seed and manures, and delivers these commodities by motor vehicles to the agriculturists in the neighbourhood. This case is no doubt typical of many other firms in a similar line of business. On 1st January, this comparatively small firm had to pay £80 insurance on their vehicles and £141 for motor licences. During the year they use on an average 9,000 gallons of petrol, and as the tax is 50 per cent., 6½d. a gallon, it cost them £234. Therefore, that firm pays, directly or indirectly, in motor taxation £455 in one year. The total rating of the premises of the firm is £147. Compare that case with the position of tradesmen whose shops are in the main street of the same town. The central shopping street, I am told, is assessed at £4,855. There are only two motor lorries used by the tradespeople in the whole of the street, on which vehicles £60 a year, it is estimated, is paid for petrol and licences. Therefore, in a street rated at £4,384 the tradesmen pay £60 a year in taxation for transport facilities, while one small firm, rated at £145, because it deals in agricultural produce, pays £455.
It is clear to anyone who has studied this question that the Petrol Duty falls specially heavily upon those connected with agriculture, upon the farmer, and upon the market gardener and those who deal in materials which are sold to the farmer. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this is a very real grievance. It cannot be a very large amount, comparatively speaking, which the Treasury would lose by making the concession, but it would remove a very real grievance from the farmers, who feel that this further burden ought not to be put upon them at the present time, especially when the whole, country and every party in the House are anxious to do everything they can for agriculture. Surely, this is not the moment to put an extra tax of 2d. per gallon on petrol used by tractors, many of which do not go upon the roads, upon lorries, a great deal of the work of which is done within the area of
the farm, and upon those whose misfortune it is to have to engage in delivering agricultural produce, or delivering goods to the farmer. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some indication that this matter, which has been raised on several previous occasions and has received sympathetic support from all quarters, will meet with recognition at the hands of the Government.

Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: May I add my appeal to the appeal that I made when the Financial Resolution was before the House, that the oil used for agricultural purposes should be exempt from taxation? I have listened with amazement to the references to the advantages of taxation. I believe in no taxes. I hate taxes. There is a kind of feeling going about that taxes are good. If they are good they may be good for the shale oil industry and other industries, but they are no good for the agricultural industry. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he should give agriculture the exemption that is asked for, which would not cost much. At the moment, oil prices are low and the full effect of the tax has not been felt, but who can say when oil prices will rise again? The big oil companies will not go on cutting each other's throats, and it is quite likely that in the near future we may see an increase in petrol prices. The Government have occupied the time of the House with Measures dealing with agriculture, and here they are stultifying their own action. Take the case of the Consumers' Council. The farmers have to pay more to take their produce to the market. I hope that I am in order—

The CHAIRMAN: I am not very conversant with the details of the Consumers' Council Bill, and therefore I cannot controvert the hon. Member, but the point before the Committee is an Amendment regarding the Oil Duty.

Mr. LAMBERT: As I understand it, the Government wish to enable the farmer to market his produce cheaply, but he cannot do that if the petrol by means of which he takes his produce to market is taxed, and also the mechanised part of his farm. I understand that the concession would cost £150,000 to £200,000 a year. Surely, it is worth while to give
that boon to agriculture. It is the duty of the Treasury to aid industry. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that he will exempt agriculture from this tax. It is a serious matter. Farmers are practically denied the use of the roads. At the present time it is almost impossible to drive cattle along the roads. They must be taken by motor vehicle. That is inflicting a hardship on the agricultural community, and that community deserves consideration. Something like 1,000,000 acres have gone out of cultivation, agricultural labourers' wages are going down and they will continue to go down if these taxes are imposed. Therefore I do appeal to the Government to give us this slight concession. Agriculture is in a most depressed state, especially the corn-growing part of the industry. They are on their beam ends and many are going bankrupt. It is now proposed to add a further burden to this depressed industry, which is one of the most important in the country. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will exempt agriculture from the imposition of this tax.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to add my voice in support of the exemption. The last speaker has stated the case admirably, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to resist the pressure from below the Gangway. Does he realise that by this tax he is really attacking modern invention? The Minister of Agriculture and hon. Members opposite have invited farmers to go in for new methods. There are no new methods so available to the farmer as the use of petrol machinery. Electricity is not available, and it is doubtful whether it can be made available at a sufficiently cheap price, but petrol can be made available to the farmer at a very cheap price. There is an idea in the mind of the Government that the farmers can use other hydro-carbon oils, such as paraffin, and that it is not necessary to give them a chance of using petrol. For most operations in farming petrol is better adapted than other oils.
Before the last General Election, hon. Members opposite were continually going to the farmers and saying that the tax on oil had upset their rating relief. That being the opinion of hon. and right hon. Members opposite before the Election,
what has caused them to alter their view and to impose a double burden on the agricultural industry? The right hon. Gentleman has a case to answer there. We are told by the Government that if they granted the concession there would be difficulty in collecting the tax. That was said about the original Petrol Duty, but I suggest that with the right hon. Gentleman's intelligence and the intelligence of those in his Department he can arrange so that the agriculturists can get a drawback. The farmer is well known as such, and has to sign any amount of official documents. The small-holder is also well known. If the drawback were allowed to the agricultural community, they would owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the Government. Even if it cost the Treasury £250,000 a year, the assistance that it would give to agriculture would be well worth it.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I support the Amendment and should like to comment on the great interest which Members of the party opposite seem to take in their Budget. One can only thank the hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain Hudson) for going over and sitting on the benches opposite. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will accept the Amendment. The fiscal view which he enunciated on the previous Amendment was that when the price of a commodity is low you may tax it, but when the price rises the tax is not good and should not be imposed. The tax now proposed is on a commodity the price of which is low, but it may well be that when the oil industry develops there may be a world shortage of oil within a few years or within the next 10 or 15 years, In that case this tax would become very burdensome on the agricultural industry.
I protest against the hypocrisy of the method of taxation imposed by the Socialist party. Whenever anybody mentions a word about the taxation of food, they are up in arms and the Liberal party are pleased to make whatever political capital they can out of such a suggestion. It seems to be the view of the Government that when a tax is obvious and direct it must not be imposed, but when it is indirect and hidden—and usually it is on some raw material
—then indeed it can be slipped in, and economic and fiscal theories can go by the board. The Socialist party complain of the low wages of agricultural workers, but the Government Front Bench makes it very difficult for high wages to be paid. I hope this burden will not be placed upon the land, and that the balance between urban and rural communities is made somewhat fairer by this Amendment, a balance which needs redressing in this case as in many other instances.

Viscount LYMINGTON: I rise to support the Amendment. I believe the Government would accept it if they had been able to have had a couple of years' work on the large-scale demonstration farm which they proposed to set up under the Land Utilisation Bill, but which has been mercifully put to rest in another place. They might have found out how important are implements and cultivation with respect to the land itself. I do not want to stress the difficulty in which the farmer is placed in the question of road transport when he does not live near a railway, but I do want to stress the importance of this Amendment in respect to the actual working of the farm itself. It is generally accepted that a paraffin engine is satisfactory and efficient, but that is by no means the case. Other things being equal the efficiency of a petrol-driven tractor is far greater than that of a paraffin-driven tractor. A petrol-driven tractor in the course of a day will plough up from two to four acres, and will use about 12 gallons of petrol, and as this tax will mean an extra cost of 1s. 6d. to 2s. per acre on the cost of one ploughing which will bring the total cost of arable cultivation up to about 10s. per acre. That is a serious matter. It must be remembered that at most only two out of every period of four years are selling crop years, and you therefore have anything from £1 to £2 as an extra tax per acre on the farmer by this proposed increase. Sooner or later, however, implement makers will develop the Diesel engine for working a tractor, and in that case the whole of this revenue would disappear. Last year there was an advertisement on the Post Office Guide in large letters, and in rather questionable taste. It was "R.O.P. That is the spirit." I am the last to wish to exempt R.O.P., or indeed any
other spirit coming to this country from the tax, but if you are going to tax R.O.P. or any other petrol spirit which the farmer wants to use for his tractor, then at least you should similarly tax the other competing things which come from the same place as R.O.P.

Captain GUNSTON: Let me say at the outset that it is impossible to debate this important Amendment adequately under the Guillotine. I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to accept this proposal. He has an opportunity here of doing more for agriculture in five minutes than the Minister of Agriculture will do in 50 years. May I impress upon him the difficult position of the farmer in regard to the movement of stock to-day? The whole policy of the Minister of Transport is to make the roads impossible for anybody but a motorist who wants to go 60 miles an hour, and in our rural areas and country lanes the roads are being sprayed with tarmac which makes it impossible to drive cattle or horses along them. They have to be transported in lorries or in trailers and, indeed, the trailer method is the best. If the farmer has a car he can put his stock into the trailer, but he uses considerably more petrol in doing so. The Amendment, if it were accepted, would help the farmer to get over the difficulty of transporting his stock. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can make this small concession. Those of us who live in agricultural districts have done our best to get farmers to adopt modern methods, but how can we ask them to improve their marketing and get organisation and co-operation between local farmers when we put on a tax which makes it much more difficult for him to carry on his business? The right hon. Gentleman has a chance here of doing something for the farmers. If he accepts the Amendment the farmers will feel that they have a friend in him.

Mr. TURTON: If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade came down to the cereal growing areas he would agree with this Amendment, and would find an opportunity of accepting it. There is one observation I want to make, and that is the absence of the Minister of Agriculture when we are discussing an Amendment of paramount importance to the industry. The question must arise why the right hon. Gentleman
the Minister of Agriculture is not present. Is he in agreement with the Amendment? He has advocated the mechanisation of farming, but this extra burden of 2d. per gallon on petrol will hit hard the man who has put down a, plant for tractors and for other operations of agriculture. If we were allowed the privilege of a long discussion, I could show how important this Amendment is, but I do not want to shut out other important Amendments. Agriculture to-day is urging the President of the Board of Trade to relax this tax and to allow the farm labourer to have a decent wage.

Mr. R. J. RUSSELL: I desire to urge two points in support of the Amendment, and both are urgent at the present moment. The farmer has had put upon him a very heavy tax due entirely, to the development of our road system and modern transport on the road. He has been compelled to carry his stock by motor instead of driving it, as formerly, on the roads. For that reason I think the farmer deserves this relief. The second point, which is just as urgent, is that the place where the relief will come is the point where agriculture needs relief most, and that is in the arable counties. For these reasons, I hope that the Government will be able to meet agriculture in this small matter. It would be a great thing for the industry, and it is a very small thing for the Treasury. I join with other hon. Members in urging the Government to accept the Amendment.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have listened with great care to the speeches in which hon. Members have pressed this exemption-The Amendment seeks to exclude from the tax petrol used for agricultural purposes, and there is a later Amendment which defines these purposes. But the broad effect of the proposal would be that there would be exemption for tractors, stationary engines and lorries which are used for the haulage of agricultural crops, and also for the farmer's motor car as well. Plainly, a proposal of that kind makes it difficult to say what the loss to the revenue would be, but in any event it is clear that, as regards tractors and stationary engines the loss might be about £75,000 per annum, and if the other items are included, the loss would be at least £200,000 per annum. While we admit the undeniably difficult circumstances
of agriculture at the moment, there are one or two cases which we can plead with particular force this afternoon, and more especially when we compare what has been done for agriculture with what has been done for certain other industries. The Agricultural Rates Act has completely de-rated agricultural land, with certain reservations as regards dwelling-houses. So that all that land is completely de-rated.
It is not unfair to remember also the advantages which farmers enjoy under Schedule B, compared with other classes of industrialists in this country. They have the right, as hon. Members are aware, of a conventional valuation for the purpose of Income Tax. If in fact their profits are less than the annual valuation, they may claim to be assessed under Schedule D on the actual profit which they earn, and if there is no profit at all they are not liable for any Income Tax. Moreover they have the right of transfer to Schedule B and can exercise that option, but the State has no right under the law to exercise an option the other way. Then all kinds of subsidies and grants have been given in recent years. It would be irrelevant to enlarge upon that subject, but it must be remembered by the Committee that an application is made for a concession which is applicable to the whole range of industrial effort in this country. When we come to the administrative difficulties of the proposal, of course they are undeniably considerable. There is no real difference between the use of these stationary engines and the use of machinery in many other industrial processes which, though perhaps not so badly pressed as agriculture, are nevertheless in difficulties. It would be quite impossible to take outside of this tax these tractors and the other machinery without a similar concession being pressed with irresistible force by other industries.
Those are really the considerations before us. Throughout the Debates, both on the Budget Resolutions and again this afternoon, I have been perfectly candid with hon. Members. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I do not like these taxes, and we have made that clear. But we have to raise a revenue, and while the tax remains the only possible course is to keep it as near as may be on a
uniform basis. I felt considerable sympathy with the speech of the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) when he said that he was against all taxes. No doubt it would be delightful if we lived under an economic system where that was possible. I might again quote a passage from an old pamphlet which shows that 2,000 years ago the tax collector was just as unpopular as he is to-day, but the fact remains that we have to raise this revenue. I take into account the many other concessions that have been made to agriculture, and I think we can establish a case for maintaining this part of the duty.
I have already said that as regards two classes the burden is really only £75,000, and as regards all classes £200,000. But it is fair to add the consideration of the general level of the price of petrol for this and other purposes. It should be remembered that many of these processes are conducted by agriculture on kerosene and that petrol is used only for starting engines. Hon. Members have in mind a kind of additional charge on the agricultural industry. That is so far covered by what I have already told the Committee regarding the price of petrol. Notwithstanding this increase of the duty, the price is lower to-day than at any time since April, 1928, except for a short period before the Budget was introduced. Accordingly there is an advantage in the very low price level. I cannot take the view advanced by hon. Members that the price of imported petrol is likely to increase. Without in any way attempting to speak finally I can say that all the information at my disposal suggests that the price may go even lower and even much lower than it is to-day. If that be so, of course the case for any special concession to agriculture would be less. The Committee is aware that I do not like to stonewall the bowling in this way, but as far as the revenue goes it is my painful duty to ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: What does the refusal of the President of the Board of Trade mean? It points quite clearly to the difference between the promises and the performances of the Government. It was quite easy some time ago to make the promise in six
quite clear words, "Farming must be made to pay," but this afternoon, when it comes to a new impost, we have a comparatively long explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to why he cannot give one small concession to farming so as to prevent it from suffering greater loss.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Under the system adopted for these Debates it is quite impossible to review the Amendment in anything like the way in which it ought to be reviewed. We have listened with the greatest possible regret to the stonewalling speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He said, in effect, "We have done nothing for agriculture, but you did; you gave de-rating, and because you have given de-rating we shall not make this very modest concession to assist the farmer." I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to read some of the speeches of his right hon. Friend in relation to the Silk Duties. The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the right hon. Member for

Epping (Mr. Churchill) was talking nonsense when he said that silk had fallen in price since the duties were put on. He said that the duties prevented a still further fall. If that argument was good regarding silk, the same argument is good regarding petrol to-day. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the revenue cannot tolerate this extremely modest loss, amounting on his own showing to £75,000, or £200,000 at the most, I hope he will remember that that is less than half the yield from one of the most modest Safeguarding Duties, that on lace, which his Government abolished. It might go forward to the farmers of this country that they are being deprived of this modification of the Petrol Duty, to which on equitable grounds they are entitled, in order to pay for the Free Trade fads and whims of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 251.

Division No. 278.]
AYES.
[6.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colfox, Major William Philip
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Albery, Irving James
Colman, N. C. D.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Cooper, A. Duff
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hammersley, S. S.


Atkinson, C.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hanbury, C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hartington, Marquess of


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Balniel, Lord
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Beamish, Roar-Admiral T. P. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dixey, A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hurd, Percy A.


Boyce, Leslie
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Briscoe, Richard George
England, Colonel A.
[...]


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Ferguson, Sir John
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Fermoy, Lord
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fielden, E. B.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Butler, R. A.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ford, Sir P. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Campbell, E. T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Carver, Major W. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Ganzonl, Sir John
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Lymington, Viscount


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Chapman, Sir S.
Grattan- Doyle, Sir N.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Christie, J. A.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Marjoribanks, Edward
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Meller, R. J.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Richardson, Sir P W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Rothschild, J. de
Thomson, Sir F.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R, (Ayr)
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Thomson, Mitchell., Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Muirhead, A. J.
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Salmon, Major I.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


O'Connor, T. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wayland, Sir William A.


O'Neill, Sir H.
Savery, S. S.
Wells, Sydney R.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Penny, Sir George
Simms, Major-General J.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Withers, Sir John James


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Womersley, W. J.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smithers, Waldron
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Pybus, Percy John
Somerset, Thomas
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Ramsbotham, H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Rawson, Sir Cooper
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.


Remer, John R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Duncan, Charles
Knight, Holford


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ede, James Chuter
Lang, Gordon


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Edmunds, J. E.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Alpass, J. H.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Angell, Sir Norman
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Arnott, John
Egan, W. H.
Lawrence, Susan


Aske, Sir Robert
Eimley, Viscount
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Freeman, Peter
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Ayles, Walter
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Leach, W.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Barnes, Alfred John
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lees, J.


Barr, James
Gill, T. H.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Batey, Joseph
Gillett, George M.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Glassey, A. E.
Logan, David Gilbert


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gossling, A. G.
Longbottom, A. W.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Gould, F.
Longden, F.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Benson, G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lunn, William


Birkett, W. Norman
Gray, Milner
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Bowen, J. W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McElwee, A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
McEntee, V. L.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McKinlay, A.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Groves, Thomas E.
MacLaren, Andrew


Bromfield, William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Bromley, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Brooke, W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Brothers, M.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth. C.)
McShane, John James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mansfield, W.


Buchanan, G.
Hardie, G. D, (Springburn)
March, S.


Burgess, F. G.
Harris, Percy A.
Marcus, M.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Marlay, J.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Hayes, John Henry
Marshall, Fred


Cameron, A. G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mathers, George


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Matters, L. W.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Maxton, James


Charieton, H. C.
Herriotts, J.
Messer, Fred


Chater, Daniel
Hicks, Ernest George
Middleton, G.


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mills, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Milner, Major J.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hoffman, P. C.
Montague, Frederick


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hopkin, Daniel
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Compton, Joseph
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Morley, Ralph


Cove, William G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Mort, D. L.


Dallas, George
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Muff, G.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Murnin, Hugh


Davies, Rhys John (Wetthoughton)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Day, Harry
Kelly, W. T.
Naylor, T. E.




Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Scurr, John
Townend, A. E.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Sexton, Sir James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Vaughan, David


Oldfield, J. R.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Viant, S. P.


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sherwood, G. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shield, George William
Walker, J.


Palin, John Henry.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wallace, H. W.


Palmer, E. T.
Shillaker, J. F.
Watkins, F. C.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Simmons, C. J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Perry, S. F.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wellock, Wilfred


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sinkinson, George
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
West, F. R.


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Westwood, Joseph


Potts, John S.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
White, H. G.


Price, M. P.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Raynes, W. R.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sorensen, R.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Ritson, J
Strauss, G. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Romeril, H. G.
Sullivan, J.
Winterton, G. E. (Lelcester, Loughb'gh)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wise, E. F.


Rowson, Guy
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)



Sanders, W. S.
Thurtle, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sandham, E.
Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. Paling and Mr. T. Henderson.


Sawyer, G. F.
Tout, W. J.



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: In speaking to this question, I wish to point out again the position in which we find ourselves. We are unable to discuss a large number of important matters which come under this Clause. In the short time the Committee has had to discuss this Clause we have only dealt with three matters out of a very large number, which hon. Members desire to raise in connection with the exclusion from this Petrol Duty of members of various professions, who use petrol for purposes which cannot be called either commercial purposes or purposes of pleasure. There were a number of Amendments put down dealing with those who use petrol as medical practitioners or as veterinary surgeons or in hospital work, ambulance work, research work in connection with aviation, with lighting, heating, cooking, and many other purposes. All those concerned were entitled to have their case put forward and, in the ordinary way, we would have been able to do so and the Government would have given way where they thought it was possible but as it—

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): The Committee is bound by the Resolution of the House, and therefore we cannot criticise that decision. The House has decided that.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Am I not in order in pointing out that these are matters all of which would have been raised if time had permitted? I am not in the least questioning the decision of the House to curtail the time, but, surely, I am in order in pointing out the disabilities under which we work owing to the fact that there are a large number of Amendments which will not be properly dealt with owing to want of time.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Within reasonable limits I should not call any hon. Member to order, but the Committee must bear in mind that the limitations have been imposed by the House. Very long criticism of those limitations is a reflection on the decision of the House.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: Is it not possible to argue that this Clause has been so little discussed in consequence of the Resolution of the House that it is quite impossible to pass it into law?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would be highly improper for the Committee to criticise any decision of the House and, by implication, such a form of criticism would amount to a reflection on the decision of the House.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I shall endeavour to bring my remarks strictly within your Ruling, and confine myself to stating that we have not been able to raise these various matters. I would
not like the Committee to go to a Division on this Clause without it being clearly known that Members of the Conservative party were anxious to put before the Committee the point of view of those who are engaged in these various occupations, who are entitled to certain exceptions from the ordinary law in the matter of Petrol Duty, and who would be entitled to special consideration from the House in ordinary circumstances. Does this not really, in effect, mean that the Clause has not been sufficiently discussed and that we should therefore not pass it as it stands? We have made an appeal to the Government to-day in connection with agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman who replied told us the appeal met with his personal sympathy, but he could not agree to it because it would cost £75,000. Surely it is preposterous, with a tax bringing in £7,000,000 or more, that, on a concession to one of the hardest hit industries in the country, a concession which will cost only £75,000, the Government should say they cannot accept it in view of the fact that by their action they are putting additional burdens on the farmer every day and making it impossible for him to earn a living. They are bringing in millions of pounds worth of foreign goods into this country and thus making it impossible for the farmer to earn a living, and yet the President of the Board of Trade says that because it costs £75,000 it is impossible to make this concession to agriculture. I hope that the Clause will be resisted.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: This very small concession, which we have asked for and which has been refused on the grounds of expense, must cause us seriously to ponder the sacrifice of revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made by the four duties which he has allowed to lapse during the past year, duties which were doing no harm but were, in fact, a great benefit. He is imposing a great burden upon the industry and transport of this country. I do not doubt your Ruling, but I submit that it is possible for a Committee of this House to discover that a grave mistake has been made on a previous occasion, and that it is in accordance with precedent that such
facts should be pointed out. When we consider to-day's proceedings and that these matters have been rushed through here in three and a half hours, the Committee will realise that this is not the way to carry on the finances of the country.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I have listened to almost the whole of this Debate, and it is very suitable that the Minister of Transport should come in at the end of the Debate on this Petrol Duty which places a great burden on a developing industry. Only a few years ago the Socialist party were raging against it; to-day they add 50 per cent. to it and bring it up to 6d. I do not say it is a bad tax—there are far worse taxes—but it is sheer hypocrisy for any Free Trader to say it is a good tax, or to go into the Lobby and vote for it. In the first place, it is a tax on raw material, the raw material of production. It is a tax on every form of industry and of transport. It is a tax on many very hard-hit people with comparatively small incomes, such as doctors and nurses and many other professions of that kind. There is not a single man who has a little car who is not hit in some way or other. In that way, it is a singularly bad tax to increase at the present time. The only defence which has been made by the President of the Board of Trade was the good old defence, which has been used on Protectionist platforms on a good many occasions ever since the tax has been put on, namely, that the price has gone down, and therefore a little more tax does not matter. That is a very excellent argument and one which can be used on a great many other occasions if necessary. It is somewhat strange that one should have this convert from one of the most extreme forms of Free Trade, that has afflicted the mind of the President of the Board of Trade, and that he should come down and use all the arguments in favour of this tax which have been used by Protectionists from time immemorial.
I think I know the real reason why he is supporting it. The right hon. Gentleman has a most amazing and photographic memory. One has only to turn up certain arguments, take away the name from the top of them and place them before the right hon. Gentleman, as the Treasury can do, and he can then
transfer them all to his memory just as to a screen or a gramophone record, and pour them all out to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has had various speeches placed before him—I refer to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). He has cut out all the vivid and interesting parts of those speeches, put together all the dull and uninteresting parts, made a nice record of them, and has then come down here and repeated it all to the Committee. There has been no imagination, nothing new or fresh in his presentation of the case.
I think it monstrous that this tax should be put on in the crude way proposed by this Clause. There is no attempt in this Clause to utilise the duty in a scientific or proper way. The Clause is simply the clapping on of a purely financial tax, without any consideration as to the way in which it is to be applied. If we are going to impose taxation at least we ought to do something by way of graduation or by some other means, to apply that taxation in the best interests of the industry concerned, and of the country as a whole. But we cannot hope to get good or scientific legislation from the crude and immature minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen such as we have on the Treasury Bench at the present time. We cannot hope to get scientific Protection from individuals of the type of those who have recently been converted to this particular taxation merely because it is expedient. A system of Protection to be effective will have to be drawn up by careful minds, by people who know how it will work and in the interests of -every single industry. It is monstrous that we should be asked to deal with a matter of this sort in a few short hours and it is utterly impossible in the time at our disposal to give fair consideration to a tax which will bear heavily on many of the country's industries.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Under the Guillotine Resolution we are compelled to pass over a number of Amendments to this Clause which are of definite importance and as an illustration I mention two in which I am particularly interested. They are the Amendments which suggest exemption,
first, in the case of ambulances attached to hospitals, and, secondly, in the case of medical and veterinary practitioners. There are precedents for these proposals and I only speak of them as illustrating the damage which can be done by imposing a general duty of this sort, without giving any time for the consideration of exemptions. In the Finance Act of 1910 which originally imposed the Motor Spirit Duty, medical men were given a rebate of one-half of the duty in respect of motor cars owned and worked by them in carrying out the duties of their practice. As regards the ambulances there is also a definite precedent. At present lifeboats are exempt. Why then should the ambulances of hospitals be taxed? They are required more than ever to-day because of the increasing number of read accidents.
I should say that the cost of attending to those accidents is not borne by the Government and is not, to any large extent, borne even by the people who suffer, but is to a large extent borne by the voluntary hospitals, the ambulance services and the St. John Ambulance Association. A very small proportion is paid by the people who have the benefit of those services. I know that, in theory, the Government propose to their Socialist supporters that there should be Socialistic services of this kind and that all these things should be run by the State, but on the other hand they often come to the House of Commons and say, "We have to take things as they are." Then they put even greater burdens upon the people who already have to bear the incubus of the.3e services. They say that they are compelled to do so, pending the nationalisation of those services. We may one day have the nationalised medical service proposed by the hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Somerville Hastings), but I think it will be a long time before we have it. It will be the acid test of the theory, because people will then have the opportunity of realising the rights and wrongs, the advantages and the disadvantages of a mechanical system.

This Clause is going to add considerably to the cost of running ambulances, and to the expenses of the country doctor. I reckon that to the ordinary country doctor who covers 20,000 miles
in a year, and whose car does 20 miles to the gallon, the extra 2d. will mean an extra £ 10 a year. Therefore by this Clause we are placing an additional burden of £10 a year on the country doctor who uses his car in order that he may get more quickly about his district and attend the people under his care. There is a definite case which the Government ought to face. As I have said, they are getting these services largely free and they are imposing an extra burden on the philanthropic community of the country. I dare say I should appeal to deaf ears in appealing for many of these purposes—even to our own party if they were in power—but as long as we are dependent to a large extent on voluntary institutions for such essential public services, then I would say to any Government that those institutions ought to be relieved as far as possible of fresh taxation in so far as it applies to their work in the service of the community.

Captain CAZALET: I wish to endorse the protest already made at the manner in which the Committee is being treated in connection with this Clause. In the 15 Amendments which we have not had an opportunity of discussing, at least four points of substance are raised. There is the question of medical and veterinary practitioners, the question of hospital ambulances, the question of civil aviation and the question of agriculture. Upon these points many of us have received strong representations from people who are vitally interested, asking that their case should be put to the Government. I have no wish to criticise a decision already taken by the House of Commons but I hope that the Government realise what a real disadvantage it is that a Clause of this importance should be discussed under present conditions. The only satisfaction which we can derive from these proceedings is that the protectionist arguments, and the common-sense point of view which we have put forward for many years from these benches, have at last had some effect upon some Members of the Government. It is perhaps a small satisfaction, but it is some satisfaction to find the President of the Board of Trade—supported by that arch-priest of Free Trade, the Secretary of State for India—advocating a Clause
which is as purely protectionist, as any proposal ever introduced by the Conservative party.

Mr. O'CONNOR: If the Committee pass this Clause, they will impose £8,000,000 per annum of additional taxation upon the people of this country. A few days ago the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) in a moving speech pointed out that having lost control of expenditure the House of Commons was losing control of taxation. There is only one way by which the House of Commons can vindicate its control over taxation and that is by refusing to allow this Clause to stand part of the Finance Bill under this farcical procedure. Until a few minutes ago, when the approach of the witching hour of half-past seven and the prospect of a Division under the Guillotine brought Government supporters here, we had only four representatives of the Government party in the Committee, although the discussion was of vital importance to all users of petrol in the community. Was ever any general tax—for such this tax is—imposed with such scant discussion, and with so little scrutiny of the elements which deserve exemption? There might be something to be said for a tax of £8,000,000 so restricted and modified after discussion as not to inflict hardship, but here we have a tax which bears equally upon hospitals and ambulances, upon agriculture, upon aviation, upon lighting and cooking arrangements—in which the poorest class of the community are concerned—and it is not possible to have a word of discussion on any of the exemptions proposed by us. In these circumstances, discussion of the Clause is a pure farce and I hope that the Committee will divide against the Clause.

CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment with respect to duties for licences on motor bicycles.)

CLAUSE 3.—(Income Tax for 1931–32.)

Sir HUGH O'NEILL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out the words "and sixpence."

This Clause raises the very important question of the amount of the Income Tax, which the Government propose to continue at the rate of 4s. 6d. in the £. As has been stated this evening more than once, the time table under which we are operating makes it impossible properly to discuss these very important taxes, and as there are many other points arising on these Clauses which deal with direct taxation, I shall not spend very much time in the arguments which I propose to address to the Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade knows very well, one of the greatest incentives to the depression from which the country is suffering at the present time is the very high rate of direct taxation, and this Amendment to reduce the Income Tax by 6d. is really moved from these benches in order to emphasise our feeling of how important it is in the present state of our national finances to give some relief to those who have to bear the burden of direct taxation. Income Tax at 4s. 6d. in the £ operates very harshly upon a large section of the community.

There is also this evening on the Paper an Amendment to exempt company reserves from Income Tax, and I should like to ask, on a point of Order, whether you propose to call that Amendment, Mr. Dunnico, because if not, I think it would be appropriate for me to make some reference to it now.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot say now what Amendments I may select, but the right hon. Member must keep to this particular Amendment in moving it. There are Amendments that may not be selected, but they could be mentioned on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir H. O'NEILL: The question of Income Tax on company reserves could be quite properly argued on this Amendment, supposing the other Amendments were not to be called, I take it?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order to do so on the present Amendment.

Sir H. O'NEILL: I moved an Amendment like this on the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions, and the whole question of company reserves was gone into
on that Amendment to reduce the Income Tax by 6d. However, I will, of course, bow to your Ruling and not refer to that matter now. As I say, the enormous burden of direct taxation is having a tremendous and deleterious effect upon the industry of the country. It has risen out of proportion, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, to indirect taxation. Year by year the proportion of direct as against indirect taxation has been increasing, and more and more in these days we find the direct taxpayer having to bear this colossal burden. I think the time is coming, perhaps sooner than the right hon. Gentleman thinks, when there will have to be some move in a downward direction with regard to Income Tax, because if that and other direct taxes are kept up to the level of to-day, the revenue simply will not be produced. There is nothing more vital in the present stage of our industrial development and of our financial difficulties than that there should be, and that soon, a reduction of direct taxation, and primarily in the basic rate of Income Tax.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: This Amendment undoubtedly brings the Committee to close quarters with one of the biggest economic issues before the country at the present time, and I know that the President of the Board of Trade fully realises that fact. I know that, as one who has his finger on the pulse of the nation's economic health, he desires to be free in order to do his best for the economic salvation of the nation, and I should like to encourage him to think that, whatever action he finds himself advised to take as a result of the Debate upon this most important question, he will be free to take it and that it will be in accordance with what perhaps we might call the staff orders of his commander-in-chief, by which, in a previous instance already in to-day's Debate, we know that he considers himself bound, because in his opening speech upon this year's Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer used the following words. He told us that he had explained on several previous occasions that it was his
desire to avoid, if possible, all forms of taxation which, whether from the economic or the psychological point of view, would have a depressing effect on industry, and which might retard recovery in trade and employment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1931; col. 1403, Vol. 251.]
The argument which will be addressed to the Committee is this, that the Income Tax at its present excessive height is a form of taxation that, both from the economic and psychological point of view, has a depressing effect on industry, and that it will retard, and is retarding, recovery in trade. What we recommend to His Majesty's Ministers is the most serious consideration whether they can ever expect successfully to grapple with the present economic troubles of the country unless and until they bring themselves to deal with the gravest of our economic evils at the present time, namely, the excessive burden of taxation, and especially the excessive burden of direct taxation in Income Tax.
The argument is familiar, I think, to the mind of the whole country, that many of the gravest evils from which we are suffering are the results of the excessive burden of direct taxation. Does not the President of the Board of Trade recognise that in every quarter there is a deep-seated, in some places suspicion, in other places conviction, that it is this excessive burden of direct taxation that is responsible for our lack of prosperity, for bad times, and for unemployment? Are we not to suppose that, with a nation informed in matters of business, informed in matters of public finance and economies, what is held by all people at all times in all places has a large measure of truth in it? There is a large measure of truth in it, and I will detain the Committee only long enough to specify the actual black and white reasons, the arguments, which underlie that wide-seated conviction which is now held, as I say, in all well-instructed quarters in the national mind.
There is, first of all, this, that by our present excessive burden of Income Tax you are depleting, below what is necessary for the economic prosperity of the industries of the country, the pool of fresh capital available for the maintenance of those industries. If you compare our present lack of prosperity with that of our continental rivals, you will Burely see that the greatest need of our time is the re-equipment of our productive machinery. Merely, I think, because of the fact that we got such a long start on other nations in productive machinery, we have settled habits, we have a certain force of inertia which has resulted in our falling somewhat behind in the
equipment of our productive energy. At the present time the great fact is the necessity for re-equipment to meet the increasing competition of the world. Not only because we have fallen behind in the up-to-dateness of our plant, but because this is the age of invention and rapid growth in the equipment of productive machinery, and in order to keep pace with the more rapid temper of the time, we need a bigger supply of fresh capital.
Just at the time when this is our greatest need, and the one characteristic need of the country in comparison with other countries, we have embarked on this fatal policy of a rapid increase of the direct burden thrown upon industrial production through the Income Tax. That is the first reason. The second reason why this excessive burden of Income Tax is one of the causes of our lack of prosperity, is more deep-seated still. The first reason to which I have referred, the depletion of the pool of savings, is in relation to the productive machinery as a whole. The second reason is in relation to the individual—the individual worker of the country and the individual Income Tax payer. The present excessive burden of Income Tax is working infinite mischief in our economic life because by the burdens it imposes it is reducing the reward of the efforts of the class of the Income Tax payer and is diminishing those efforts. You cannot reduce the reward of effort below a certain proportion in relation to the natural reward without injuring and diminishing the effort itself. That, of course, is of peculiar gravity to a nation such as ours, which is equipped to be a great manufacturing and producing organisation for the whole of the world. We depend upon nothing else so much as upon the brains and the energy of the managerial class, of the class that are the natural leaders of production, the natural organisers, the natural pushers, drivers and inventors; and that class is undoubtedly under the present organisation of society very largely co-extensive with the class of Income Tax payers.
Thus, by laying this excessive burden in this particular quarter, we are laying it in precisely that quarter where it can work most harm to the vigour and the successful competition of our national economic system as a whole under
present conditions. I know that it has been argued in the past that the Income Tax does not enter into the cost of production and so does not amount to any disadvantage in competition with foreign rivals. I believe that that is the most dangerous and untrue piece of rough approximation to the truth that has ever been stated in economic controversy. It is so rough an approximating to the truth that it is much more an approximation to falsehood than an approximation to the truth. I dare say that in some ideal world, with a very small Income Tax applied by measures of absolute science and perfect equity, controlled by a fiscal machine which can only exist in a paradise and in no world of practice, a small Income Tax might be so devised as not to enter into the cost of production; but an Income Tax of the size we have in this country, imposed upon the basis and according to the fiscal regulations that we have in this country, does notoriously, to the knowledge of every practical man, enter into the cost of production and hamper us in competition with our foreign rivals.
The truth is that if Income Tax is to have no effect on the cost of production, it has to be a pure tax on profit. Another truth is that our Income Tax is a great deal more than a tax on profit. If Income Tax were confined to a direct tax on profits, so that it was only paid out of income, it would, according to any reasonable signification, be looked upon by any sane man as profits. If it were only paid out of that fund, it would be a bad look-out for the Exchequer and the country. As a matter of fact, the burden of Income Tax falls on a much wider area than anything which can reasonably be called profit. Thus it does enter into the cost of production. The argument amounts to this, and it is an argument which most needs the attention of the country at the present time, that by the excessive burden of direct taxation on industry you are starving the industries of the country and smiting them on the head with a blunt instrument and reducing them to a stunned condition. If we lived in the world alone, wholly defended from any form of foreign competition, you might do what you liked. You might impose taxation of a kind which a Socialist Government imposes
if there were a single State in the world and one economic organisation, and I dare say you would not produce the effects which I have described, because in that case people could not escape from it. But when you live in a world in which we have many States and independent economic organisations, you cannot do it, because effort and capital can escape from it, and they will escape from it if you impose burdens on them greater than those imposed in any other part of the civilised world.
The burdens are greater than in any other part of the civilised world, and what is the result? Capital at the present day is international. It flows like a mobile liquid from State to State. Effort and brains become increasingly international, too, and in the organisation of the modern world effort and invention and capital will seek that State where they can earn the biggest reward. How then can you expect them to come to this country if you impose on them bigger burdens than any other country? How can you expect the economic system of this country to maintain itself in the face of its foreign competitors unless it attracts to itself a fair share of the annual increment of brains, invention and capital? It is because under present conditions we are frightening all that new blood in endeavour from our shores, more than any other reason, that we are falling back in the race of production, and the competition for the world's production. In that we see the fatal symptom of a rapidly diminishing share of the world's international trade held in this country.
I know that the easy line of the President of the Board of Trade to take on an occasion such as this is to say, "You are proposing to reduce the Income Tax by 6d. The yield is about £4,000,000 per penny tax, in spite of the slackening of the yield, and the reduction will mean that the Exchequer is being asked to give up £24,000,000 of revenue. It cannot be done, and I cannot afford it." The fact is, however, not that the Government cannot afford to spare this £24,000,000, but that they cannot afford not to do it. You cannot afford not to make some alleviation, some concession in the tribute which you are exacting from the productive effort of the country. Surely, things have gone on from bad to worse long
enough for us to be no longer content with the short view that this is a convenient way, and that, after all, the revenue will come in. Has not the time come when the Government are prepared for once to take a longer view, and to understand that it is impossible for them not to afford some such relief to the overburdened productive system of the country?
The right hon. Gentleman may say, "Unless I get this revenue, how are we to maintain the social services of the country?" It is no longer a question of maintaining the social services of the country by the present scheme of taxation. If you attempt to do so, if you attempt by continuing this excessive burden of direct taxation to maintain the present level of social services, do you not realise that year by year you are running downhill towards a point at which you will no longer be able to maintain those services, and will be compelled to reduce them? In any such predicament as that in which the nation finds itself, you must withdraw to jump it; you must ease the burden in order to enable the beast of burden to continue on its journey. If you do not do so, the whole process stops.
The point is that in the long view, which is so rapidly becoming the short view, unless you are prepared drastically to remit the direct burden on industry, you will wreck the existing machinery of taxation and will no longer be able to produce the money to maintain the social services, and the whole present system of finance will be brught to standstill. I may be asked what alternative I have. This is not the time to discuss it, but I know perfectly well that the quip will be addressed, as it is constantly addressed to us when we use an argument of this sort, "What is the good of asking us to abandon £24,000,000 of revenue unless you have an alternative?" In a single sentence I will defend myself against that easy retort. The alternative is a revenue tariff.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: When I saw this Amendment on the Paper I did not expect it to be moved, because on the 5th May we had a long Debate on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman was able and lucid in explaining the position then, and the House of Commons defeated it by 260 votes to 196. I should have thought that that was conclusive,
and that the Opposition would have devoted more of the time at their disposal to some other subject. When the House of Commons has expressed itself in that way, one would have thought that the Opposition would have gone no further with it. I welcome the question of the distribution of wealth being raised. When we get on to Income Tax and the hard life of the people who have to pay it, it always leads me to ask where the money is to come from, whether it should come whence there is a fair amount to be got, or whence there is a little and where poverty exists. If we remit this 6d., the total loss to the revenue will be a little more than the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. The figures show that Income Tax is expected to bring in this year £248,000,000. One-ninth of that, that is 6d., represents £27,500,000, a little more than the right hon.
Gentleman mentioned. That £27,500,000 is needed, and, if it is not to be got from this source, where is it to be found? The right hon. Gentleman suggested revenue duties. The country is not having revenue duties. It sent a Labour Government here against revenue duties. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Petrol Duty?"] If it is suggested that Income Tax payers are too hard-hit, will hon. Members opposite suggest some other source of revenue with which we could agree? I find that the Super-tax payers, who last year contributed £67,832,000 to the revenue, will this year pay £72,000,000, which indicates that they will have more income this year than last year. In 1928–29, according to the report of the Board of Inland Revenue, there were 97,600 Super-tax payers, and their incomes totalled £541,000,000, or an average of £5,500 a year. Four thousand of them had from £8,000 to £10,000 per year, or £176 a week, 4,500 had from £10,000 to £15,000 per annum, or £240 a week. The Super-tax payers, who are the inflated Income Tax payers, if I may put it so, certainly have a lot of money, and, if hon. Members opposite complain that we are now hitting too hard capable business men, it may be suggested that we might turn to some of these Super-tax payers, who certainly cannot be called people in want. Only those people pay Super-tax who have an income of £2,000 or more. If hon. Members opposite
would be willing to secure more revenue from them we might very well agree to help them.
They might go a step further, and try the Death Duties. The Death Duties are an important source of revenue, and we ought to tap it more than we do. Death Duties are expected to contribute £90,000,000 to the revenue this year. "We could very easily get another £30,000,000 from Death Duties. If we were to do that, we should be suiting the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain). When he was speaking on the Land Tax proposals he criticised the Chancellor of the Exchequer for sparing the dead and taxing the living, pointing out that graveyards were being exempted from the Land Values Tax. I would recommend this to him: Let us get at the dead through Death Duties; because the people who have passed away will not feel the loss of the money we take from them. As he said that we are sparing the dead and taxing the living, I would point out that here is a real opportunity to tax the dead by increasing the Death Duties and save some of the living.
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite ought to realise the position in which the country finds itself. We agree that the burden of taxation is very hard to bear, but at the same time they must realise that the poorer classes are suffering more than anyone on the opposite side, if I may say so respectfully, because those who have to pay Income Tax are at any rate sure of a comfortable home and a meal whenever they want it. The poorer classes, who would have to pay more in indirect taxation if we altered the present taxation, cannot say that they are sure of a covering for their head or a meal whenever they want. If this question is put to the vote, and I do not think it will be, we ought to show ourselves just as emphatic as we were on 5th May and reject the Amendment.

Mr. HASLAM: I would like to reinforce the cogent arguments and the weighty warning addressed to the Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young). He referred to the fact that Income Tax is not only a tax on profits but also a tax upon reserves. It is not, as the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has just said, a tax paid out of monies which
are in the possession of persons to do with as they like. The hon. Member quoted various large sums of money which, he said, represented the incomes of persons liable to Income Tax and Super-tax. I would like to point out that those sums of money do not represent the incomes of those Super-tax payers in the sense in which the hon. Member used that word. They are the incomes upon which the various taxpayers are assessed, but a business man or a company, any institution carrying on trade for the purpose of profit, is absolutely bound to put aside a portion of what has been earned in a good year in order to prepare for bad times which may ensue and to meet all sorts of charges which arise in business. The figures which the hon. Member put forward as being the spendable income of the persons assessed to these taxes are not a true representation, by any manner of means, of their spending incomes. Everyone who has knowledge of these matters knows that a man may not have to spend anything like the amount of money to which he is assessed for Income Tax and Super-tax.

Mr. SANDHAM: Hear, hear.

Mr. HASLAM: I am very pleased to think that certain hon. Members agree with me.

Mr. SANDHAM: That is my sense of humour.

Mr. HASLAM: I would like to go into the question of company reserves more closely. The hon. Member for Leigh referred to the large majority with which the House passed the general Income Tax proposition, but when the Income Tax was increased from 4s. to 4s. 6d. in the £ the question of the taxation of company reserves and the necessity for companies to maintain such reserves was brought prominently under discussion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss the question of company reserves on this Amendment. There is another Amendment dealing with this matter.

Mr. SANDHAM: Tell us something about the forces of inertia.

Mr. HASLAM: I think I might be protected from such interruptions as that. The point I desired to put was that the question of relieving company reserves from Income Tax was gone into very
closely last year, and it was found impossible to secure that relief, and I wish to submit now that the only way in which we can give companies the relief that is required is by reducing the tax from 4s. 6d. to 4s.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out, in the first place, that the hon. Member is anticipating an Amendment which is on the Order Paper, and, in the second place, that that Amendment is not in order on this Clause, but must be moved as a new Clause. While it would be quite proper for him to make a reference to company reserves it would not be proper for him to make them the substance of his argument.

Mr. HASLAM: From a technical point of view your Ruling is, no doubt, just, but I do feel that the question of reserves comes into this question of Income Tax.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wants to argue that at length, he must wait till the new Clause is called. At present he must keep within the terms of this Amendment.

Mr. HASLAM: I am glad to think that there will be a further opportunity of dealing with this matter. It is to be hoped that the time limit under which we are discussing this Bill will not prevent this important matter being raised. A point I would like to make in passing is that the ordinary individual trader is not allowed to calculate any reserves at all, although he is bound to put aside a sum of money for future use, and therefore it is not correct to say that we are taxing only what one may call his spending income at 4s. 6d. in the £, because we are limiting the amount he may put aside for future development.
The hon. Member for Leigh seemed to be under the impression that it has become a choice between direct and indirect taxation, between taxes on well-to-do people and taxes on poor people. We are all agreed that the working people can hardly afford to pay any more taxes, and I should never support any tax which might fall on them, but does not this Income Tax fall upon them? If we take it out of the power of the traders of this country to extend their businesses we are damaging their employing capacity. It is noteworthy that the last 10 years of very severe unemployment—up to a year or
two ago it was more severe in this country than in any other country—have been years in which this country has suffered under an enormous Income Tax. Our direct taxation is higher than that of any other country in the world. I suggest that there two facts may very well be correlated. After all who are the people who give employment? They are the business people and the employers of labour, and, if further burdens are piled upon them, surely it must be evident that that course acts against further employment and the expansion of business and it may even act in such a way that business cannot proceed and unemployment becomes much worse. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to examine this matter of direct taxation with greater closeness, because I believe that high direct taxation will prevent a return to prosperity in this country. For these reasons, I shall support the Amendment.

Mr. BENSON: I do not think that the party opposite have treated this Amendment very seriously. There is a small band of the faithful left, but the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have left the Chamber after delivering very perfunctory speeches having as it were thrown the dog a bone to gnaw. I was very disappointed with the effort of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young). Really it is a very good speech, and one which has done service on innumerable occasions in this House. When the brother of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) pleaded against the Budget of 1914, he made the same speech and made it far more effectively than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks. Indeed, this speech has been made every time there has been an increase in the Income Tax. The perfunctory methods which have been adopted in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks seem to me to suggest that the Conservative party are getting rather tired, or else they feel that it is rather hollow. In 1842, Mr. Wood made this speech magnificently on the introduction of Peel's Income Tax, and proved conclusively that an Income Tax of 7d. in the pound would inevitably drive all the capital out of the country. I ask hon. Members to read that version of the speech and compare it with the version which has been delivered to-day by the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for Sevenoaks. May I also make a quotation from the original form of this speech as delivered by Sir John Sinclair in this House, who on the first introduction of the Income Tax by Pitt said?:
Allow me to ask how long it can be expected that either the wealth or the industry of the people can hold out under even the apprehension and terror of such exactions.
Sir John Sinclair continued:
and must we, on that account, give way and submit, even without a struggle, to such a mischievous project, as the one now under consideration; a project, Sir, which could only have been occasioned by the most unbounded profusion, could only be originated in the harshest tyrannical principles, and must either terminate in the disgrace and ruin of the bold projector or destruction of the nation.
I ask hon. Members to compare those words with the milk and water stuff we have heard to-day, because they are words used on the same subject. I should prefer to treat this speech as it should be treated, that is as a piece of imaginative literature, comparing one version with another in literary merit, but I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) took it seriously so I must proceed to examine one or two of the suggestions which have been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that high taxation is responsible for unemployment and he also stated that this country was much more highly taxed than other countries. If high taxation is responsible for unemployment in this country how is it that in countries with lower taxation there are even higher rates of unemployment than in this country. Germany has over 5,000,000 unemployed and there is thus a higher rate of unemployment in Germany than in England. In America we are told there are 10,000,000 unemployed. There is an authentic figure published by the American Federation of Labour showing that never since 1926 has there been less than 24 per cent. of their membership unemployed. If you take Australia and Canada you find exactly the same thing, namely, that those countries not merely during the last year but during the last four or five years have steadily had a higher unemployment rate than we have in this
country. Again I ask how is it if unemployment is due to our high taxation that other countries with a lower taxation are suffering in regard to unemployment to an even greater degree.
It has been suggested that the slump in trade is due to our high taxation, but the slump is common to all countries. This country did not feel the slump before other countries, and our rate of taxation at the present moment is no higher than it has been for the last 10 years. In 1924 we raised nearly £30,000,000 more in Income Tax than it is proposed to raise this year. Did that affect our trade and industry? On the contrary, despite a stable rate of taxation for the last 10 years our trade, industry and national wealth has steadily increased. Sir Josiah Stamp estimated that between 1924 and 1929 the increase in our national income, despite falling prices, amounted to no less than £400,000,000. In about five years the net taxable income of the country increased by about £120,000,000. During the same period, our index of production increased from 100 to 112. During all this period, the present level of taxation has obtained, and I suggest that it is really farcical to attribute unemployment and the present slump to a level of taxation which has been stable for the last 10 years—in fact, ever since the War. I say definitely that, despite our high taxation, we have withstood the effect of the world slump better than our rivals.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks, although he looked anxiously at the Chair when he said it, gave as his alternative a revenue tariff., Let me point out that the United States, which has a revenue tariff, is faced with a deficit of £200,000,000. We at any rate have carried through the last financial year, not with a deficit, but with an actual surplus—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman forgets that in our theoretical deficit there is reckoned £60,000,000 of debt reduction. In the American deficit of £200,000,000, there was £88,000,000 of debt reduction, leaving a net absolute deficit of £112,000,000. If you take our actual surplus, leaving out questions of theoretical debt reduction, you will find that, including the £9,000,000 that came from Germany, we had a surplus of £52,000,000, which is exactly the amount of the deficit from which Germany has
suffered during the same period. We have a surplus of £52,000,000, and we are the only country in the world that has a surplus of £52,000,000, or anything like it; most countries have failed to balance their budgets at all. I am afraid that this is not the place to discuss a revenue tariff, but I would suggest that, as the one completely Free Trade country—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot allow that. I have allowed the hon. Member to make a brief reply on the question of a revenue tariff, and he must be content with that.

Mr. BENSON: Everyone knows that we are the only Free Trade country in the world, so I content myself with saying that we are the one country in the world that has been able to produce for the year 1930–31 a financial result of so magnificent a character.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks, in the various perfunctory arguments that he used, suggested that this tax is damaging in that it heavily taxes managerial ability. That is not seriously true. I do not know what managerial salaries average; I suppose they vary within very wide limits; but a very fine managerial salary is £2,000, and I find that the amount of Income Tax payable on an earned income of £2,000 is £275. No one can suggest that that is very damaging. On the higher level, if one takes a managerial salary of £5,000, the tax, including Surtax, is only £1,250, which is not very serious. I suggest that it is not the managerial salaries, it is not the salaries of the brain workers, that are being severely hit by this tax. The people who are severely hit are the people with large incomes, the major portion of which, of necessity, owing to their size, come from unearned sources.
Following very far behind Mr. Wood in 1842, not only in point of time hut also in point of vigour, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Severnoaks suggested that our high rate of Income Tax must inevitably drive capital abroad to those happier climes where Income Tax is lower. What is the fact? As I have pointed out, for 10 years we have had our present level of taxation, infinitely heavier than the taxation prior to the War, and, according to Mr. Layton, the economist, in his evidence before the Colwyn Committee, the amount of capital
exported abroad before the War was approximately £160,000,000 a year. That figure he gave as the average. All our authorities, the Colwyn Committee itself, and Sir Josiah Stamp in a more recent estimate, put the export of capital for the 10 years subsequent to the War at £100,000,000. If one allows for the very large difference in value, one sees in a moment that the amount of capital that went abroad prior to the War was very much higher than it has been of recent years.
There is no evidence that taxation is frightening capital away; there is no evidence that there is a shortage of capital. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to show that there is capital in the country—frozen capital awaiting investment—capital which is frozen for two reasons. One of them is the slump, and one is a psychological reason for which hon. Gentlemen opposite are very largely responsible, by the preaching of defeatism and pessimism with which they have always met any attempt on the part of the Labour Government to improve the conditions of the working class.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) gave a number of quotations as to what our income was. I do not care very much for his quotations from well known gentlemen; I prefer to turn to what I have to face in the way of facts, namely, 2,500,000 poor people out of work. That is what we have to face as a result of Labour legislation—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We have had two years of Labour legislation—[Interruption]. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen will look at the figures of 18 months or two years ago, and see the number of those who were out of work then, and will also look at the number of people who are in suffering and misery to-day through unemployment. We have not been in power during these last 18 months or two years, but previously we gradually and steadily did what we could and reduced the number of people who were in that miserable state.
I am very much astonished to hear the-arguments about unemployment in Germany and the United States. The hon. Member argued that there was a great deal more unemployment in Germany than here. I, and most of us in this House, have very sad reason to know
why Germany has more unemployed than we have. We know that there has been a War. We have to think of graves of our own people over there. [Interruption.] My bank balance was not increased; my gains were nil; part of my family circle is gone. [Interruption.] You cannot talk about the War with Germany in terms of money; you can only talk about the War in terms of tears. Germany is a defeated nation, and the wonder is that there are not more unemployed there now, even than there are. To compare a defeated Germany with England, so far as unemployment is concerned, is to show a complete misapprehension of what the comparative situation is.
As regards unemployment in America. I have discussed, in this House and elsewhere, the question of the shipment of gold to America. The breakdown that we now see in America was bound to come. America, surfeited with gold and unable to digest it, with the power of production in her factories extended beyond all reason, turned to gambling. The position of the United States is a disaster, not connected with production or manufacture, but with Wall Street gambling, boosted up by borrowing for gambling. That is what has brought America to the position of unemployment that she is now in. It was not caused by legitimate expansion of trade. It was the expansion of credit for gambling. People who compare America and Germany with us have not begun to understand what the two positions are. It is a perfectly false analogy. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Canada"?] Canada has been drawn, just as the re3t of the world has been drawn, into the maelstrom and the difficulties set up by Wall Street gambling. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that the cause of the world slump"?] It is one of the great causes. The mal-distribution of gold upon which credit is based—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The discussion is getting very broad.

Mr. SAMUEL: I admit the justice of your rebuke, Sir, but it was not my fault. I was drawn into the point. What is the result of this high taxation here? Let me quote something that was said not many weeks ago:
The General Council of the Trades Union Congress, in putting their unemployment proposals before the Commission on Unemployment, said that they desired the removal of charges on industry and recognised—and this is one of the most important statements that has been made recently—
That the cost of the social services of health and unemployment does represent a handicap particularly serious when the products of his (the employers') firm have to meet the competition of commodities which do not contain a similar item of cost.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1931; col. 302, Vol. 252.]
I agree with that. It supports my view that this heavy taxation prevents us selling our goods in foreign markets, creating new customers and holding our old customers. As to the hon. Member telling us that the revenue balances, is he not pulling our leg? He must know that the revenue did not balance. You do not balance national accounts by pawning capital possessions. You must pay your way out of income. In order to make the last revenue account balance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to borrow something like £40,000,000 for the Unemployment Fund.

Mr. BENSON: I am fully aware of that, but our balance was £52,000,000, and if you deduct the £40,000,000 it still leaves a definite and clear balance of £12,000,000.

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member must not think that I agree on that point. I remember very well in an earlier stage an hon. Member on this side explaining what the net repayment of Debt was. He showed, after making the proper deductions, instead of paying off £50,000,000 we paid off no more than £3,000,000 or £4,000,000.

Mr. BENSON: Even if I give the hon. Gentleman all his calculations that figure still shows a balanced Budget.

Mr. SAMUEL: How can it be a balanced Budget if the Sinking Fund had to be borrowed? We are now running into debt to the extent of £1,000,000 a week. The hon. Member shows that he has not started to grasp how these accounts are running. What have we at present in the way of taxation? Roughly £800,000,000 of national taxation and £200,000,000 of local taxation. The hon. Member quoted Sir Josiah Stamp saying the income of the general population was so many thousands of millions of pounds—perhaps
four thousand. We are now by the heavy taxation which we are trying to keep down by this Amendment working, each one of us, rich and poor alike, three months in the year for the tax collector. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) advocate an increase of Death Duties and of taxation. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that the only cure for our maladies is further taxation. The proper thing to do is to increase wealth and not to impose further taxation. Not only does not this Budget balance, but I make so bold as to say as a rejoinder to what was said by the hon. Member for Chesterfield that I do not believe, notwithstanding all that was forecast by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, that the current year will balance by £20,000,000. We are living in illusion. We are not paying our way and we shall not pay our way in the current year. The system in which the minds of hon. Members opposite move seems to be to devise means to divide up wealth. I never hear a proposal put forward by them for the purpose of increasing wealth. They forget that the population does not stand still.

Mr. SANDHAM: Neither does robbery.

Mr. SAMUEL: I am sure the hon. Member could make an erudite speech which would interest the Committee. If he will do so I will sit down, but if not, I must ask him to extend to me the usual courtesy. Every year children are born and the population increases. If there are 10 people in a house and 10 loaves of bread, that is one for each person. If you have an extra person unless you increase the number of loaves, the newcomer takes a little from the rest. If the population goes up as it does 200,000 or 300,000 every year, you must increase the general wealth of the population, otherwise the standard of living goes down. Wealth here is not being adequately increased. There is no inducement to make wealth. Let me quote some figures from the report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Take the income assessed as Surtax for the last four years. It has steadily decreased while the population has increased. It dropped from £556,000,000 in 1925–6, £555,000,000 in 1920–7, £544,000,000 in 1927–8, to £541,000,000 in 1928–9. That is to say, the wealth of the nation has decreased
instead of growing. The tax yield has fallen from £57,000,000 to £52,000,000. The money which has to be paid in Surtax is needed for new ventures. A large number of ventures are started because people believe that there is a likelihood of big profits being made. They say, "We can afford to lose sometimes because sometimes we make great gains." The inducement of great gains makes men willing to lose in new ventures. We have to-day a large number of factories which were extended, owing to the War, beyond their power of selling their products. It is therefore necessary to-day to found new industries just as we founded two or three new industries in the past. I have particularly in mind artificial silk and the products of the Soya bean.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Member, but the Amendment which we are discussing is whether we shall have a 4s. or a 4s. 6d. Income Tax, and I think that his arguments are getting rather wide of the Debate.

Mr. SAMUEL: You are very gentle with me, Mr. Dunnico, and I will endeavour to keep within your Ruling. We want some of the extra money which goes in Surtax in order to encourage the investment of capital in new undertakings which will supplant and supplement old industries which fail to give the employment necessary for our people. Therefore, it is of the greatest advantage that taxation should not be too high. It should be reduced in the sense that my hon. Friend has suggested in order also to give people an inducement to venture their money. With the Income Tax at 4s. 6d. in the £—we are seeking to bring it down to 4s.—plus the very large amount of Surtax, and then Death Duties which hon. Gentlemen opposite advocate should be increased, there is no inducement for a man to venture his money. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman opposite must know that when a man makes a great deal of money, practically half of it is taken away by taxation, and if he has saved any of it, much of it is taken away by Death Duties. On the other hand, the State gives nothing back again; if a man fails he loses everything. In the interest of the accretion of wealth, of finding employment for our
people and ensuring them a higher standard of living, it is necessary that you should remove the discouragement of heavy taxation. I have tried to make my arguments on that line in order to show that we require new ventures, and money to put into those ventures. No money will be available to be risked to such ventures as long as we remain so heavily taxed.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite must have noticed the terrible object lesson of the financial collapse of Australia. Over-taxation there—and it is happening here—beyond the economic strength of that great people has brought them into terrible trouble. They borrowed just as we are borrowing. Fortunately we are able to borrow at home, but they, unfortunately, had to borrow beyond the seas. We should not increase our expenditure to such an extent that as taxation cannot meet it it necessitates our having to turn to borrowing for current expenditure. We have unfortunately found it very easy to raise money by-taxation in the past. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) said, Income Tax and Surtax are very easy to raise. If they should fail we turn to borrowing. Such a course can only lead to sorrow. The limit of taxation has been passed. Looking at the position in a disinterested and perfectly reasonable way, I think that it will be admitted that we have got beyond the limit of taxation. I would remind the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down here in the spring and electrified the House by saying the same thing in stronger language than I am using.

Mr. REID: I wish, for a moment or two, to try to follow the steps of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel). An hon. Gentleman who spoke from the opposite side of the Committee said that we had had this taxation for 10 years. We have 2,500,000 unemployed, and I believe that the fact that we have had this taxation for 10 years is legitimately concerned with the state of unemployment. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, no doubt, take another point of view. They think that enterprise can be carried on by the State. Personally, I believe that enterprise
carried on by the State would result only in failure and starvation. Under the existing system, enterprise has to be carried on by the private individual. The taxation which has been levied upon private individuals is breaking the heart of enterprise. I have practised at the bar for a good many years, though I am not practising at the moment, and solicitors have come to me and told me of a number of clients who had done fairly well for themselves but found that it was useless to stay in business. They said to him, "The more profitable our business, the higher the taxation. It pays us, now that we have got our money, to go out of business and live in the country." I am not stating a theory but telling the Committee of what has happened within my own knowledge. Each one of those cases resulted in a number of men employed in a business for a number of years being definitely thrown out of employment.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us that Income Tax does not affect the cost of production, and that it does not affect enterprise, because it is levied only on realised profits. What are realised profits? [Interruption.] I ought to be allowed to make my speech. If the hon. Gentleman opposite has not a grip of the situation, he should not interrupt. These people who are in business do not look at the normal rate of profit. When a man goes in for a particular enterprise he looks at the net amount of money in the shape of profits he is going to get after he has paid all the outgoings including Income Tax, Surtax and everything else. Is the amount which the enterprise yields sufficient to compensate him for the risk? If you raise Income Tax, Surtax and other taxes, the amount which a man can receive to compensate him for his risk is comparatively low. That means that there are a great number of enterprises which he would not touch in existing circumstances. If he touched them, it is quite possible that he might lose his money. If he were able to make reasonable profit, he would give employment to people in the country.
Hon. Members opposite bar out all that kind of thing. It is a vicious circle. You levy taxation upon a man. First of all, you prevent him putting money by in order to engage in new enterprises,
and you actually discourage him from using the money he has got because you do not make it worth while for him to continue in business. So long as the system of private enterprise obtains in this country, you must make it worth while for private enterprise to devote money, energy and skill to doing something new, and thereby creating employment for the people of this country. If you make it more discouraging for an Englishman, Scotsman or Irishman to do any particular thing which foreign countries may do for their own citizens, then this country will go down. We have definitely to do something which will make it worth while for people to put their energies into business enterprises. How does it pay the Government to discourage the rich man who has capacity, not to use his capacity? I know cases of men who have very large incomes and have business ability, and I have talked to several of them. They have pointed out to me that they are suffering an enormous handicap, because they say that in regard to every penny of profit they make they start on a higher level of taxation. If a man is a poor man and he makes profits we encourage him to keep some of the profits to increase the business. If he is a rich man, do not try to keep him out of business, but let him come into business and give employment.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: With a great deal of the very reasonable speech of the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Reid) I am completely in agreement, but I cannot help thinking that if he were in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and were confronted with this Amendment, he would find it very difficult to give way to it. He has said that we are breaking the hearts of men of enterprise, but it is a fact that the breaking of the hearts of the men of enterprise has gone on for 10 years, and he has to produce a reason why the process of breaking their hearts should be suspended by this Government, whereas previous Governments could not do it. Everyone knows that the Government are exposed to very difficult world circumstances which, incidentally, do impose very large burdens on the Exchequer in various ways. Therefore, the position of the Government is not less difficult but more difficult than the position of those who went before. Whatever reasons were
good enough to cause the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) to impose an Income Tax at this rate are accentuated at the present time.

Mr. REID: The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) reduced the tax.

Mr. GRIFFITH: I am prepared to meet the hon. Member on that point, but at any rate under the right hon. Member for Epping and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer the Income Tax re mains the most suitable way of raising revenue and it is chosen, and rightly chosen, by one Government after another as being preferable to other ways. If hon. Members come forward to criticise the Income Tax, they must do one of two things. They must either tackle it on the question of expenditure, or they must point out some fairer or better way of raising the national income. If they try to find a better and a fairer way of raising the income, I do not think they will be able to do it. It takes a certain amount of the money which people are receiving year by year and it is graduated more or less in accordance with the ability of people to pay. Almost all other taxes err either by trying to anticipate something which people have not yet got, or by imposing a tax which bears with very different degrees of weight on different classes of the community. Although a great deal of what the hon. Member has said may be perfectly true, when you are actually faced with the burden of finding money in a particular year, I think this is a most difficult tax to alter. On other occasions, by all means, if expenditure can be reduced so that the burden becomes less, there will be an opportunity for everybody, according to their several lights, to make their contribution, but faced with a burden that has to be met it seems to me that this is the most difficult tax of all to reduce, because it is the one which Government after Government of all parties has been forced to rely upon as the foundation of their Budget.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I will reply very briefly as hon. Members opposite are anxious to reach other Amendments on the Order Paper. It will be sufficient for me to say that to accept this Amendment would cost £20,000,000 in the 9.0 p.m. current year and £26,000,000 in a full year. For that
reason, we cannot accept it. I will not enlarge on the subject. What I said when the subject was debated on the Financial Resolution stands. We can take the Division and the Committee will

then be able to proceed to the later Amendments.

Question put, "That the words 'and sixpence' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 196.

Division No. 279.]
AYES.
[9.3 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, Watt)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gill, T. H.
McKinlay, A.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Glassey, A. E.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gossling, A. G.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Alpass, J. H.
Gould, F.
McShane, John James


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Angell, Sir Norman
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Arnott, John
Gray, Milner
Mansfield, W.


Aske, Sir Robert
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
March, S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marcus, M.


Ayles, Walter
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Marley, J.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marshall, Fred


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Groves, Thomas E.
Mathers, George


Barnes, Alfred John
Grundy, Thomas W.
Matters, L. W.


Barr, James
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Messer, Fred


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Middleton, G.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mills, J. E.


Benton, G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Milner, Major J.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Montague, Frederick


Birkett, W. Norman
Harris, Percy A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bowen, J. W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morley, Ralph


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mort, D. L.


Bromfield, William
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Muff, G.


Bromley, J.
Herriotts, J.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Brooke, W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Murnin, Hugn


Brothers, M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hoffman, P. C.
Naylor, T. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hollins, A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hopkin, Daniel
Noel Baker, P. J.


Buchanan, G.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Burgess, F. G.
Isaacs, George
Oldfield, J. R.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Jenkins, Sir William
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Cameron, A. G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Palin, John Henry


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Palmer, E. T.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Chater, Daniel
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Perry, S. F.


Church, Major A. G.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kelly, W. T.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pole, Major D. G.


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Potts, John S.


Cove, William G.
Kinley, J.
Price, M. P.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Knight, Holford
Pybus, Percy John


Daggar, George
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilton


Dallas, George
Lang, Gordon
Rathbone, Eleanor


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Raynes, W. R.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Richards, R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Day, Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dukes, C.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Ritson, J


Duncan, Charles
Leach, W.
Romeril, H. G.


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Edge, Sir William
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rowson, Guy


Edmunds, J. E.
Lees, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lindley, Fred W.
Sanders, W. S.


Egan, W. H.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sandham, E.


Elmley, Viscount
Logan, David Gilbert
Sawyer, G. F.


England, Colonel A.
Longbottom, A. W.
Scurr, John


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Longden, F.
Sexton, Sir James


Freeman, Peter
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lunn, William
Shaw Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McElwee, A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Gibbins, Joseph
McEntee, V. L.
Shield, George William


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Shillaker, J. F.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Simmons, C. J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
West, F. R.


Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Westwood, Joseph


Sinkinson, George
Thurtle, Ernest
White, H. G.


Sitch, Charles H.
Tillett, Ben
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Tinker, John Joseph
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Tout, W. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Townend, A. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Vaughan, David
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Walkden, A. G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sorensen, R.
Walker, J.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Wallace, H. W.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Stephen, Campbell
Watkins, F. C.



Strauss, G. R.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sullivan, J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.


Sutton, J. E.
Wellock, Wilfred



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Eden, Captain Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Albery, Irving James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Mulrhead, A. J.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Astor, Viscountess
Ferguson, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Fielden, E. B.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Atkinson, C.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
O'Neill, Sir H.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Peaks, Capt. Osbert


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Penny, Sir George


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balniel, Lord
Ganzonl, Sir John
Perkins, W. R. D.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Power, Sir John Cecil


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pownall, Sir Asshetou


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gower, Sir Robert
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Grattan Doyle, Sir N.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Boothby, R. J. G.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Remer, John R.


Boyce, Leslie
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Briscoe, Richard George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ross, Ronald D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Salmon, Major I.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hanbury, C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butler, R. A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major S. E. (Davon, Totnes)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Campbell, E. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Savery, S. S.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Simms, Major-General J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Cecil, Ht. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smithers, Waldron


Christie, J. A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Somerset, Thomas


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inkslp, Sir Thomas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Knox, Sir Alfred
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Colville, Major D. J.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Cooper, A. Duff
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Cranborne, Viscount
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Thompson, Luke


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lymington, Viscount
Thomson, Sir F.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Maitland, A, (Kent, Faversham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dalkeith, Earl of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Marjoribanks, Edward
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davies, Maj. Gao. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Meller, R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wayland, Sir William A.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Wells, Sydney R.




Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount



Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Womersley, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
Captain Wallace.


Withers, Sir John James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton



Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I rise just to make this statement, that under normal circumstances we should wish to debate other Amendments and to divide upon them, and that in normal circumstances we should wish to divide against the Clause, but the time allotted for discussion is so grossly inadequate that we do not propose to do so.

CLAUSE 4.—(Higher rates of Income Tax for 1930–31.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Once again I should like to make it public that we should wish to discuss this Clause but that once again we cannot do so because of the inadequate time allotted to us. For that reason only, we do not propose to divide against the Clause.

CLAUSE 5.—(Construction of Rule 20 of General Rules.)

Sir T. INSKIP: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, to leave out the words "whether before or."

This Amendment, I submit, is one of great importance and is one which I hope in the limited time at our disposal will receive some consideration, if not adequate consideration. May I remind hon. Members, some of whom may be unaware of the fact, that the subject of this Amendment was raised at a late stage one night, or early one morning, when the Attorney-General mentioned the matter upon the Financial "Resolution which is the basis of the Bill, and I am justified in calling the attention of the Committee to the words the Attorney-General used in his appeal to the House to pass the Resolution. He said:
The House, of course, will have ample opportunity, when we come to the Clauses of the Bill, to consider the details of this matter, which I will then expound more
fully, but I forbear from doing so at the present stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1931; col. 356, Vol. 252.]

I suppose that I am entitled to use unparliamentary language about myself, and I say quite frankly that I was a fool to respond to the appeal that was made to me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] I ought to have expected that we should be debating this Bill under some such circumstances as the present, and I shall not be deterred from saying what I like by such interruptions as have occurred. As the Attorney-General has not expounded fully the proposals of the Clause, and as we have not, in his words, "ample opportunity" to consider the details of this matter, it is incumbent on us to make whatever use we can of the short hour allowed to us.

My proposal is to leave out some words which have been inserted with the intention of making Income Tax legislation retrospective, that is to say, I ask the Committee to leave out the words which the Attorney-General is deliberately asking the Committee to put into the Bill in order that the law maybe altered with regard to a litigant who is in the course of exercising his ordinary rights under the law as it is to-day. I do not propose to discuss the proposals of the Clause, but, in the absence of that full exposition which the Attorney-General promised us, I must say a few words which will, I hope, be sufficient to indicate what this Clause purports or attempts to do. As everyone knows, there is a practice in Income Tax law under which a company paying dividends deducts the Income Tax from the gross amount of the dividend. As everyone also knows it is assessed in each year upon a statutory measure of income in respect of its profits, and it pays tax in that particular year according to the amount of the assessment. But in a particular year it may very well happen, and indeed almost invariably does happen, that the sum payable by a company for Income Tax is quite different from the sum which in fact it deducts from the dividends paid by it in that year. The practice has existed for many-years, and, broadly speaking, it has been
worked without any dissatisfaction and without objection being taken to it.

Surtax and Super-tax have raised new questions. A certain litigant, a Mr. Hamilton, took objection to being charged, by way of deduction from his gross dividends, any sum in excess of that which truly represented the Income Tax payable by the company in that particular year upon the assessment of its profits. I propose to say no more about the proposals of the Clause except that they are drafted in language which will be very difficult indeed even for a lawyer to understand. I doubt very much whether it will be possible, even after two or three hours discussion, to have any useful exposition of the language of the Clause. When the Financial Resolution was introduced, the Attorney-General described it as the most complex and intricate Clause in connection with Income Tax which it would be possible to discuss. Those two epithets were deliberately used by him. So the Committee can appreciate the possibilities at our command in discussing the proposals of the Clause.

But there is no doubt at all about this: Mr. Hamilton was engaged in the court in putting forward his objection to the assessment made upon him for Surtax, for the reason I have mentioned. His arguments may be good or they may be bad. They were advanced before a learned judge, who dealt with them most seriously, and he gave judgment against Mr. Hamilton. The Attorney-General came down with a Financial Resolution which proposed to alter the law, not with regard to future litigants in this held of Income Tax law, but to alter the law retrospectively so as to make it impossible for Mr. Hamilton to succeed in the appeal which he proposed to make. It so happens that the speed with which appeals in Income Tax matters have been heard has enabled Mr. Hamilton's appeal to be taken. The appeal has failed. Mr. Hamilton's objections to the longstanding practice to which I have referred as affecting his liability to Super-tax, have not prevailed before the Court of Appeal any more than before Mr. Justice Rowlatt in the first court.

Notwithstanding that fact, I understand that the Attorney-General still proposes to make the alteration of the law retrospective so as to prevent Mr. Hamilton
from advancing his arguments in the highest tribunal of all, where times without number Noble Lords have found it possible to provide for the protection of the taxpayer even in the case of adverse judgments in both the courts upon the same question. But whether or not Mr. Hamilton's appeal is likely to succeed in the House of Lords is really immaterial to this discussion. I beg leave to say that he has a right of appeal based upon the law which was in existence at the time when the question arose. It is a monstrous invasion of that right, with which no hon. Member opposite will have any sympathy at the bottom of his heart, to alter the law retrospectively so as to make his rights depend, not upon what the law was three or four years ago when the question arose, but upon an altered law which the Attorney-General is asking the Committee to pass to-day.

The Income Tax laws are extraordinarily complex. Year after year we make them more intricate. I say with all respect that the House of Commons is incapable any longer of an intelligent appreciation of the various propositions that are introduced one after another in our Finance Acts. The Committee has depended up to now, and I believe it has been safe in being dependent, upon the undoubted integrity of those who have to administer this branch of the law, and upon the advice which the Law Officers and the Chancellor of the Exchequer give to the Committee. But once this House is asked on trust to allow the Chancellor or the Law Officers to alter the law retrospectively, this House is deliberately delivering the liberties of the subject, hand and foot, over the people over whom the House has no control whatever. It so happens that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, in his unregenerate days, expressed objection to retrospective legislation, and I take the liberty of reminding him of what he said. When I speak of his unregenerate days, I refer to the days when he sat on the Liberal benches. He said in 1923:
Retrospective legislation, as everyone agrees, is not desirable if it, can he avoided. I should like to read to the House one quotation from one of the most eminent judges, perhaps the most eminent judge who ever sat on the English bench. He said this about retrospective legislation:
'It manifestly shocks one's sense of justice that an act legal at the time of
doing it, should be made unlawful by some new enactment.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1923; cols. 1367 and 1368, Vol. 160.]

The Attorney-General used those words in this House. I hear his applause for them at this (moment. In view of the complexity of the Clause, I may be pardoned for quoting further from him. He was appealing to my right hon. Friend, then Sir Douglas Hogg, and myself, and he went on in that speech to express the hope that we would
consider very earnestly and anxiously whether they cannot, in Committee, depart from the evil practice which has been established in the past and use the simple English language, which can quite easily be done, and make it intelligible to everyone."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1923; col. 1369, Vol. 160.]

My present purpose is to deal, not with the comparative unintelligibility of this Clause, but with the simple, plain issue as to whether retrospective legislation can be avoided. We were told by the Attorney-General on 5th May that if Mr. Hamilton's contention prevailed, confusion would result in the administration of the Income Tax laws. I am not prepared to accept that as sufficient reason for introducing retrospective legislation into the Income Tax laws. The Attorney-General on that occasion made a rather curious statement which I was not altogether able to understand. He said:
That being so"—

namely, that the whole system of deduction from the source would break down if the Hamilton judgment were reversed:
we have felt it necessary to take a step, which is by no means exceptional, and which should only be resorted to in special circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1931; cols. 354–5, Vol. 252.]

I suppose by that he meant that there were cases of retrospective legislation in the past. Subject to correction, I beg to doubt if there has ever been a case of retrospective Income Tax legislation. If there had been such a case, I should accept what the Attorney-General says, but that should make us all the more cautious, as the Income Tax Acts are getting more and more complicated, about allowing any repetition of the unfortunate precedents of the past. I do not believe there is any such precedent in Income Tax administration. You can
say what you like about retrospective legislation in fields which are well understood by hon. Members in all parts of the House, but if you introduce retrospective legislation into the Income Tax laws, you are really doing it in a field least suitable of all for its operation.

We are told that the Income Tax laws will be thrown into a state of chaos if we do not make it retrospective. In my humble judgment, it would be far more dreadful that the protection of the law should be withdrawn from the taxpayer than that there should be some inconvenience in the administration of the law. Far better a deficiency in the collection of Income Tax than give the impression to the public at large that they need not trouble about their rights, because if the exercise of them is inconvenient to the Treasury, their rights will be altered by Parliament retrospectively. There was a famous saying by Archbishop Magee, that England had better be free than sober. I venture to repeat that, and say it is better to be free than even to balance our Budgets. This is a sinister attempt upon the liberties of the taxpayer. It is a filching away of the subject's right. I challenge the Attorney-General or any hon. Member to defend this proposal to take away from the taxpayer the right which he has at the present time to insist upon the law being applied to his case without any interference retrospectively by Parliament. I am told that necessity compels this alteration. That is the argument which tyrants have always used when they have interferred with the liberty of the individual, as they have said, for the public convenience. It is one which I should be very much surprised if hon. Members opposite were prepared to countenance.

I know it is very likely that the Attorney-General will be able to secure votes in the Lobby for his proposal, but, if he thinks fit to preess it, I say in the presence of hon. Members opposite that I do not believe there is one of them who does not look with apprehension on the use of this weapon to alter the law retrospectively so as to deprive the taxpayer or the litigant of his rights as they exist. This Committee has been vigilant in protecting the rights of the taxpayer on many occasions famous in history. I hope this evening it will not connive with the Attorney-General in depriving the
taxpayer of the right, almost the only right which he has under Income Tax law, of appealing to the Courts to apply that law strictly against the Crown if the words are not far beyond all possible doubt. Over and over again that principle of interpretation has been stated. It would be futile, ridiculous and useless if, when the Court has interpreted the law, Parliament can be asked by the Ministry of the day, with all the power at its command in the use of the votes of this House, to alter the law for the mere convenience of the collection of Income Tax, or any other tax. Therefore, I beg to move to leave out the words which will make this tax retrospective.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: It is not necessary for me to add many words in support of the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend. I want to try, very briefly, to point out the simplicity of the issue before the Committee. We are not concerned in this Amendment with any question of the complex nature of the Income Tax Acts. The question which we have to decide briefly is this: If in the year 1928 or 1929, if, in a year several years ago, under the law as it stood, the taxpayer was liable to pay Surtax on certain money and not on other money, then, is it right for Parliament to legislate retrospectively in order to say that, although it was not the law in 1928 that the tax should be paid on this money, it shall be deemed to have been payable on that money although the law was to the contrary? For the purpose of this argument, we have to assume—and it is a perfectly justifiable assumption—that the House of Lords may decide the law on this subject in a contrary sense from the decision of the Court of Appeal in the first instance. The case is at the moment open to that decision by the House of Lords, and surely it is too much for any hon. Member of this House to say that, when a case is actually pending before the Courts of this country in regard to the rights and liabilities of the subject, the Legislature shall come down and take this matter out of the hands of the court, and say, "It matters not what their decision may be. In other words, it matters not what the law was in 1928; we think the law ought to have been something else, and we are going to pass legislation to say that the subject
shall be treated as if the law three years ago was something quite different from what it really was."
That is the short point and I cannot suppose that any Member of the Committee who understands that simple point, can do otherwise than agree with our contention that it is wrong for Parliament to supersede the powers of the Courts of deciding what is the law. Obviously, it is equally wrong for Parliament to do what it is proposed to do here on the assumption that the House of Lords may decide the case adversely to the Government. It is quite unthinkable that Parliament should say, "Although tax was not payable on certain property three or four years ago, we are now going to enact that tax shall be payable on that property." I only wish to stress this one point. Here is a matter actually pending before the Courts of the country, and the Government propose to say to the Courts, "It matters not what your decision may be, we desire that the interpretation should be so and so, and we are therefore going to decide that it shall be so, by legislation, instead of having it decided by the Courts of the realm." It is quite clear that it is nothing more or less than the proposal of an autocratic despot who proposes to govern the country, not according to any set of laws at all, but according to what may be his mighty will and pleasure, and, who if he makes laws and then finds that they are inconvenient, not merely says, "I will put an end to those laws," but says "I shall treat my subjects as if those laws had never been made." Surely further words are not required to commend to all responsible Members of the House the proposition that this is a proposal in the Bill which cannot be allowed to go through.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the Attorney-General please tell us when he replies, what are the "profits and gains" of the company, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to get at under this new rule?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): For my own part I should be perfectly willing to accept the invitation which the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) has just extended to me, but you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, I am sure, would say that I was out of order in doing so. It may be that I
shall have an opportunity of expressing a view upon that point, but I regret that, solely for the reason which I have stated, I cannot do so now, and I am sure that the hon. Member will not think me discourteous for not dealing with the matter. I think that a good many of the observations which have been made are rather out of place. If I may say so without disrespect, it seems rather ridiculous to refer to our conduct in this case as being that of an automatic despot. [HON. MEMBERS: "Autocratic."] Perhaps there is not much difference between the two, but a despot, be he automatic or autocratic, has not to come to the House of Commons to get their consent to the proposal which he is putting forward.
With regard to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip), I listened with surprise to his statement that retrospective legislation—a form of legislation which I thoroughly dislike, and with regard to which I should repeat to-day precisely what I said some years ago—had not been resorted to in regard to Income Tax matters. My researches have not gone further back than the last 10 years, but within the last 10 years I have found instances in which all three parties are implicated—in the Finance Act of 1921, in the Finance Act of 1923, and in a very celebrated case, which arose out of the decision in McDonald versus Shand, in the Finance Act of 1924. I take the last case because, I think, it indicates the point, and demonstrates the real reason why we ought to object to restropective legislation. May I tell the Committee first what the position was in the case of McDonald versus Shand? It was the case of a man employed by a company on the basis of a fixed salary and a share of the profits, and the question arose whether in assessing him for Income Tax under Schedule E you were to assess the profits which he happened to get for the particular year, on exactly the same basis as his salary, or whether he was to have the privilege, if he wanted, of averaging out the profits over three years.
The highest tribunal in the land decided that he had the privilege of averaging out his emoluments so far as they were fluctuating, over the three years. It was felt that that same principle might apply to civil servants, who as the Committee
know are paid part in salaries and part in a bonus which is dependent on the cost of living, and is to that extent, fluctuating. It was felt that if this concession were extended to the Civil Service not only would it cost a considerable sum of money but it would also unfairly differentiate between those civil servants whose assessments had been fixed and determined, and therefore were no longer able to appeal, and those who, not having had that process gone through with regard to their cases, consequently could still appeal. Doubt was expressed as to whether or not the decision would also apply to the fluctuating bonus of the Civil Service. Some of us thought that the case which the Government of the day put up was not strong enough then to justify the introduction of retrospective legislation. I was one who thought so, but the Committee of that day took a different view, and, since the hon. and learned Member for Fareham has done me the honour of quoting the words which I used on a different occasion, I should like to quote the words which were used then by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) in explaining why he recorded his vote on that occasion to justify retrospective legislation. The right hon. Gentleman explained in words far better than any which I can hope to select what the true principle was and I entirely agree with the way in which he laid down that principle. He said:
Before we consider whether this particular case is one which would justify legislation of that character"—
That is retrospective legislation—
we might perhaps ask ourselves why do we object so strongly to retrospective legislation. I think it is because if a man has done something which is perfectly legal, which is in accordance with the law of the land, which he would not have done if the law had been different, and if, subsequently to his performing that action, the law is altered retrospectively, then he is made to have done something illegally which he would not have done had he been in possesion of the coming change.… When did civil servants—because it affects civil servants for the most part—first become aware of the possibility of their getting anything back in respect of assessment made in those earlier years? Not till March, 1923, and, therefore, it is quite clear that even if such speculative and hypothetical rights as they may have, on the supposition that the case McDonald v. Shand may also cover the case of war bonus, were taken away from them, it cannot be said that they are in the position
of a man who has either done something or omitted to have done something in consequence of his believing the law of the land would remain the law of the land. Nothing has been done or undone by those civil servants which they would not have done or undone if the law had been quite clear and altered in the sense of this Clause before 1923. Therefore, it seems to me, looking at the matter from the point of view of retrospective legislation, that if we consider the real reason why we object to retrospective legislation, that reason does not exist in this particular case, and the only objection, therefore, we have to legislation of that kind does not really, or ought not really, in this case to have any weight with us"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1924; cols. 1396–8; Vol. 175.]
I entirely agree with those observations. It seems to me to put the real case against retrospective legislation as clearly as it can be put.

Sir T. INSKIP: In that case did the proposed legislation deprive the litigant of his rights in the litigation which he had initiated believing the law to be what it was?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: It deprived all potential litigants—

Sir T. INSKIP: Actual litigants?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Permit me to proceed. It deprived all potential litigants of the rights which they would have had. Before I can answer with regard to actual litigants, I must know whether you mean by litigants people who have cases pending or heard before the Commissioners. If there were litigants in that position—

Sir T. INSKIP: What I meant was, Was Mr. McDonald, who had entered upon the litigation believing the law to be what it was, deprived of his rights by the retrospective operation of the new legislation? That is the question.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Not at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not followed the case that I have put. McDonald and Shand was decided. The question then arose whether the principle of McDonald and Shand might apply to civil servants. The law was altered retrospectively in the sense to take away from civil servants the right which they would have if the decision of McDonald and Shand had applied to their case. What is the position in the present case which makes the present case far stronger than the case which the House
passed in 1924? Ever since 1842 it has been at any rate believed, as part of the principle of deduction at the source that a company in paying dividend to a shareholder might deduct from the dividend paid Income Tax at the rate which in recent years has been called the standard rate. There was some question formerly as to whether it was the rate applicable at the time the profits were earned or at the time the dividend was paid. That difficulty has been cleared away, but the right of deduction was never considered to be a right which in any way depended upon the actual amount of profits which the company had made in the year in which they were paying the dividend; and it is obvious, if the Committee will consider, that extreme difficulty would result from any such view.
It is not merely that no shareholder could possibly tell what ought to be deducted from a dividend paid to him, because he would have but little means of finding out what the accounts of the company were—and very likely the accounts of the company for the year in question would not be finally completed when the dividend was paid—but the position in this case which makes it so serious and why it is that I am not merely considering this case from the point of view of the revenue is the position of a man entitled to exemption or abatement. Take the case of a man to-day who gets, and all that he has in the world, is a dividend of £100. That is all that he has. He is entitled to go to the officials and get back, on production of that dividend warrant, the difference between the amount he actually receives and the gross amount which that dividend would represent if you allowed for deduction of tax at the standard rate, regardless of the fact whether the revenue ever had that or not. That is the practice, and has been for years; and if you are going to make the right of a person entitled to exemption or abatement depend, not upon the distinction between the gross amount and the net amount on the assumption of deduction at the standard rate, but make it depend upon the actual liability of the company in respect of some particular period, you may very gravely injure the small taxpayer who claims to get back the full amount of the tax.
Consequently, the Committee will see that any doubt on this point would not
only cause chaos with regard to the principle of deduction in the past, but would let loose the floodgates of litigation between all the shareholders in companies and the companies which for years past have been paying dividend deducted at the standard rate. All shareholders for the last six years would be entitled to make claims against companies, but the poor taxpayer, the man who would be entitled to exemption or abatement, would also be enormously prejudiced. If the Committee think that I am overstating the case, I would quote to the Committee the opening sentence of the Master of the Rolls in giving judgment in the Court of Appeal in favour of the Crown, and affirming the decision of the trial Judge:
This appeal fails. It raises a very important point, for it is a point which would alter, if not entirely upset, the system under which deductions of tax are made upon dividends paid to shareholders.
It is really idle to represent this case as though it were a mere matter of convenience. It is far more than that. It is a case which would imperil the whole system of the collection of Income Tax, which, as I say, would allow a vast amount of litigation to take place, and which might very seriously prejudice the interests of the very taxpayer whom we all want to protect most of all. How did the point come to arise? Just as in the case that the right hon. Gentleman stated of the civil servants who did not think until 1923 that they had got any such right, so it was in these cases. Not very long ago there was decided a case, which I will call the Gimson case, which was dependent upon his own peculiar and particular circumstances. The fact that the Gimson case was decided led some ingenious taxpayers to consider and to think possibly that this system, which had gone on all these years, under which deductions at the standard rate had been made from dividends, was wrong, and thereupon this Mr. Hamilton and, I think, one other started proceedings. It is not the case that they objected at the time of the deduction of the dividend, because the point had never occurred to them at all, and in the whole-history of the matter from 1842 downwards it had never occurred until the last few months; but having the Gimson case before them, they thought they had this
technical point and that they were entitled to say that the amount to be deducted must depend upon the amount earned by the company, on which Income Tax was to be paid, instead of being deducted at the standard rate.
I hope I have given the Committee reason to suppose that the retrospective legislation which we are asking the Committee to grant us in this case comes well within the canon which the right hon. Member for Edgbaston laid down on the last occasion, which I entirely accept. Just as in that case the civil servants he said, discovered quite recently that they had this possible right, so here this point after nearly 100 years was discovered a few months ago. But here lies the difference between the two cases. In the Civil Service case, supposing McDonald and Shand had not been followed by legislation, it would have cost the Treasury round about £3,000,000. That was perhaps not a sufficient reason, but I venture to think that it is a reason if I can show that you will have a vast amount of litigation, and that so far from benefiting the taxpayers, if you benefit the taxpayers at all, you will merely benefit some rich taxpayers to the prejudice of many poor taxpayers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Certainly, everybody who seeks exemption or abatement will be prejudiced. At the present time, a man who claims abatement automatically gets back the full rate of tax. If the Hamilton contention was right, he would not be entitled to get back automatically the full rate. The amount he got back would be dependent on something it would be difficult to prove; it would depend upon the amount of profit a company had made.
In these circumstances, really it does not seem to me that there is any reason at all to suggest that there can be any objection to legislation which merely makes it plain beyond a peradventure. The principle is so important that we ought to leave nothing to chance. Though I venture to think that the Court of Appeal decision is really one which would commend itself to the highest tribunal, I realise that there is a chance, and this Clause is for the express object of avoiding a chance of that decision being reversed, which would badly, if not
entirely, upset the whole system of collection of Income Tax which has been in force for nearly 100 years.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Those private Members who have done their best to follow the technicalities of the Income Tax Acts will not have been surprised at the speech of the Attorney-General. Whenever similar questions come up, we get the same type of reply. We get a great statement upon the effect on the revenue, and a special statement about the effect on the small taxpayer. The small taxpayer is always produced for the purpose of playing to the gallery. [Interruption.] I am speaking without any reference to any particular Government, but I have followed this matter under all kinds of Governments, and I find the same type of reply. One thing we never get, and that is a reply to the real point at issue. If the Committee will read the speech of the learned Attorney-General to-morrow, they will find that he has not replied to it. Here is the real issue. A taxpayer is conducting litigation which he is entitled to conduct, and he has not completed his full rights under the law, for he has another court of appeal. Before that right is exhausted, the Attorney-General comes forward with all these specious pleas—and they may be, for all I know, admirable pleas—and he proposes to deprive him of the potential chance of exercising his rights.
That is the issue, and there is no other. When the Attorney-General refers to the fact that it has not come up for over 80 years, has he forgotten last Thursday? Against a speech which I made, he prayed in aid an Act which was put upon the Statute Book precisely because something had been discovered under the very same Acts, the Income Tax Acts, by one Bowles, which had not been discovered for more than 40 years. There is the other point of view now—a different point of view. I ask the Committee not to think about the Treasury—we have too much talk about the Treasury and the Inland Revenue—but to think for once about the ordinary private citizen with no defence except this House. In spite of the specious plea of the Attorney-General, the issue is whether any taxpayer or citizen is to be deprived of his full right under the law.

Mr. ATKINSON: The Committee will appreciate the danger of litigation being increased if the litigant is hamstrung half way through his fight by legislation. Surely the position in the McDonald and Shand case was different, for there there was no attempt to interfere with existing litigation. The Legislature waited until litigation was over, and nothing was done to interfere with the rights of the litigant. Here you are interfering with something which is being done with the plea that the law lies in a certain way. Action has been brought in that belief, and before the House of Lords has finally determined the case the law is changed. If it were not because of a serious fear that the House of Lords might put this right, this would not have been done. The fact that it is done shows real apprehension as to the final result. The Attorney-General says that there is justification for this in the belief, which existed for 80 or 90 years, that the taxpayer has the right to claim at the standard amount on the amount paid.
This Bill is not carrying out that provision. If Clause 5 stopped two lines from the bottom of page 3, it would carry out what the Attorney-General said, but there are some six or seven lines of the most complicated description which certainly make new law as far as I can understand it. It certainly does not carry out what has been the belief and become the practice for the past 70 years. I will say one other thing about the small taxpayer. It seems to me that there is nothing whatever in that case. Supposing it to be determined that a company is only entitled to deduct something less, then, of course, there is something less for the taxpayer to recover. You will not have the full 4s. 6d. deducted on the amount paid, but the company will only be entitled to deduct precisely what had been paid. There would be so much less deducted, and the taxpayer he would have the same right as he has now to get from the Government exactly what had been deducted. There is nothing whatever in that point. It is a red herring that has been drawn across a perfectly simple issue.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 217.

Division No. 280.]
AYES.
[10.4 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mills, J. E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major J.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Groves, Thomas E.
Montague, Frederick


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morley, Ralph


Alpass, J. H.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Angell, Sir Norman
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mort, D. L.


Arnott, John
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Muff, G.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Murnin, Hugh


Ayles, Walter
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Nathan, Major H. L.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Haycock, A. W.
Naylor, T. E.


Barnes, Alfred John
Henderson, Arthur, junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Barr, James
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oldfield, J. R.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Herriotts, J.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Benson, G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Palin, John Henry.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hollins, A.
Palmer, E. T.


Birkett, W. Norman
Hopkin, Daniel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bowen, J. W.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Perry, S. F.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Isaacs, George
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jenkins, Sir William
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Brockway, A. Fenner
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pole, Major D. G.


Bromley, J.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Potts, John S.


Brooke, W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Price, M. P.


Brothers, M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pybus, Percy John


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Raynes, W. R.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R.


Burgess, F. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Kinley, J.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cameron, A. G.
Knight, Holford
Ritson, J.


Cape, Thomas
Lang, Gordon
Romeril, H. G.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Charleton, H. C.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rowson, Guy


Chater, Daniel
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sanders, W. S.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sawyer, G. F.


Compton, Joseph
Leach, W.
Scurr, John


Cove, William G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sexton, Sir James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Daggar, George
Lees, J.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dallas, George
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lindley, Fred W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shield, George William


Day, Harry
Logan, David Gilbert
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Longbottom, A. W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Dukes, C.
Longden, F.
Simmons, C. J.


Ede, James Chuter
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Edge, Sir William
Lunn, William
Sinkinson, George


Edmunds, J. E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sitch, Charles H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MeElwee, A.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Egan, W. H.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Elmley, Viscount
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Freeman, Peter
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sorensen, R.


Gibbins, Joseph
McShane, John James
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stephen, Campbell


Gill, T. H.
Mansfield, W.
Strauss, G. R.


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Sullivan, J.


Glassey, A. E.
Marcus, M.
Sutton, J. E.


Gossling, A. G.
Marley, J.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gould, F.
Marshall, Fred
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mathers, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Matters, L. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gray, Milner
Maxton, James
Thurtle, Ernest


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Messer, Fred
Tillett, Ben


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Tinker, John Joseph


Tout, W. J.
Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Townend, A. E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercitffe)


Vaughan, David
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Viant, S. P.
West, F. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Walkden, A. G.
Westwood, Joseph
Winterton, G. E. (Lelcester, Loughb'gh)


Walker, J.
White, H. G.
Wise, E. F.


Wallace, H. W.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Watkins, F. C.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)



Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Hays and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Albery, Irving James
Eden, Captain Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Alien, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
England, Colonel A.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Morrison, W. s. (Glos., Cirencester)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Muirhead, A. J.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Astor, Viscountess
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Atholl, Duchess of
Ferguson, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J.


Atkinson, C.
Fermoy, Lord
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Fielden, E. B.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Penny, Sir George


Balniel, Lord
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Ganzonl, Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gault, Lieut.-Cot. A. Hamilton
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gower, Sir Robert
Ramsbotham, H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Remer, John R.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Boyce, Leslie
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of Londen)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Briscoe, Richard George
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ross, Ronald D.


Brown, Brig,-Gen. H. C. Berks, Newb'y)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hell, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Salmon, Major I.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Butler, R. A.
Hanbury, C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sasscon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Savery, S. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Simms, Major-General J.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerset, Thomas


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Christie, J. A.
Inksip, Sir Thomas
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Steel-Maitland Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colman, N. C. D.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Colville, Major D. J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thompson, Luke


Cooper, A. Duff
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cranborne, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Turton, Robert Hugh


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Vaugban-Morgan, Sir Kenvon


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lymington, Viscount
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davies, Maj.-Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Meller, R. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount




Womersley, W. J.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise only for the purpose of saying that we on these benches do not feel that the case put by the Attorney-General has in any way answered the objections that have been raised by hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the Committee. There is a good deal more that we could say and desire to say, but, unfortunately, under the terms of the Guillotine Resolution we can only discuss or even divide upon this Clause at the expense of discussion on the next Clause. In these circumstances, I content myself with entering my protest against the mutiliation of discussion upon this Bill and sitting down.

CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment as to payment of tax by instalments.)

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, after the second word "shall," to insert the words:
except as regards payments in respect of assessments under Schedule B.
I rise to move this Amendment in the fewest possible words, in view of the automatic procedure under the Guillotine Resolution. I ask just once again if it is worth while to ask for some consideration to be shown to farmers in respect of Schedule B. Theirs is the hardest hit occupation of all the occupations in this country, and surely this is not the time to put fresh burdens upon the industry.

This proposal has quadrupled the burdens of the farmers under Schedule B, and therefore I ask hon. Members to vote against it.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I propose to say only a few sentences in regard to this Amendment. The short point is that farmers already have the advantage of a conventional assessment based on one time the annual valuation, or, if their actual profits fall below that figure, they can come under Schedule D. Therefore, it is clear that the farmers enjoy certain privileges at the present time under the Income Tax.

Mr. E. BROWN: I rise for one purpose, and that is to make clear to the House the monstrous nature of this Guillotine proposal with regard to taxation. The acceleration of the Income Tax, whether to farmers or other people, is going to create a great deal of difficulty for hundreds and thousands of people, and it will be very oppressive. It is a monstrous thing to compel the discussion of this important Clause to take place in a matter of about 12 minutes. It is a wicked business.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I would like to congratulate one Liberal Member upon having had the courage of his convictions.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 265.

Division No. 281.]
AYES.
[10.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Albery, Irving James
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton


Alexander, Sir Wm. Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Boyce, Leslie
Chapman, Sir S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Christie, J. A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Briscoe, Richard George
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Broadbent, Colonel J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Astor, Viscountess
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Atkinson, C.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Colfox, Major William Philip


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Colman, N. C. D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Colville, Major D. J.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Butler, R. A.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Balniel, Lord
Butt, Sir Alfred
Cooper, A. Duff


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Beaumont, M. W.
Campbell, E. T.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Carver, Major W. H.
Cranborne, Viscount


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Richardson, Sir F. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Inksip, Sir Thomas
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ross, Ronald D.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Russell, Alexander West (Tyncmouth)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Salmon, Major I.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dixey, A. C.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Savery, S. S.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


England, Colonel A.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Simms, Major-General J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst.)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne. C.)


Ferguson, Sir John
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fermoy, Lord
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Smithers, Waldron


Fielden, E. B.
Lymington, Viscount
Somerset, Thomas


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Marjoribanks, Edward
Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Meller, R. J.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Gower, Sir Robert
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grace, John
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomas, Major L. B, (King's Norton)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B
Thompson, Luke


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mulrhead, A. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
O'Connor, T. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
O'Neill, Sir H.
Wells, Sydney R.


Hammersloy, S. S.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hanbury, C.
Penny, Sir George
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Withers, Sir John James


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Womersley, W. J.


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ramsbotham, H.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Reid, David D. (County Down)



Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Remer, John R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Hurd, Percy A.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Sir Frederick Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Broad, Francis Alfred
Dallas, George


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bromfield, William
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Bromley, J.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Brooke, W.
Day, Harry


Alpass, J. H.
Brothers, M.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Ammon, Charles George
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Dukes, C.


Angell, Sir Norman
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Duncan, Charles


Arnott, John
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Ede, James Chuter


Aske, Sir Robert
Buchanan, G.
Edge, Sir William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Burgess, F. G.
Edmunds, J. E.


Ayles, Walter
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Egan, W. H.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Elmley, Viscount


Barnes, Alfred John
Cameron, A. G.
Freeman, Peter


Barr, James
Cape, Thomas
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Batey, Joseph
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Charleton, H. C.
Gibbins, Joseph


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Chater, Daniel
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Cluse, W. S.
Gill, T. H.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gillett, George M.


Benson, G.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Glassey, A. E


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Compton, Joseph
Gossling, A. G.


Birkett, W. Norman
Cove, William G.
Gould, F.


Bowen, J. W.
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Daggar, George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)




Gray, Milner
McKinlay, A.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
MacLaren, Andrew
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sherwood, G. H.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shield, George William


Groves, Thomas E.
McShane, John James
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Shillaker, J. F.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mansfield, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
March, S.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Wellington)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marcus, M.
Sinkinson, George


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Marley, J.
Sitch, Charles H.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Marshall, Fred
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Mathers, George
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Harris, Percy A.
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Maxton, James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Haycock, A. W.
Messer, Fred
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hayes, John Henry
Middleton, G.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, J. E.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Milner, Major J.
Sorensen, R.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Montague, Frederick
Stamford, Thomas W.


Herriotts, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Stephen, Campbell


Hirst, G. H. (York W. B. Wentworth)
Morley, Ralph
Strauss, G. R.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sullivan, J.


Hoffman, P. C.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sutton, J. E.


Hollins, A.
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hopkin, Daniel
Muff, G.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Muggeridge, H. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Isaacs, George
Murnin, Hugh
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Jenkins, Sir William
Nathan, Major H. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Naylor, T. E.
Tillett, Ben


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tinker, John Joseph


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Tout, W. J.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Townend, A. E.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oldfield, J. R.
Vaughan, David


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Viant, S. P.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Walkden, A. G.


Kelly, W. T.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Walker, J.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Palin, John Henry
Wallace, H. W.


Kenworthy Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Palmer, E. T.
Watkins, F. C.


Kinley, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Knight, Holford
Perry, S. F.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lang, Gordon
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Pole, Major D. G.
West, F. R.


Lawrence, Susan
Potts, John S.
Westwood, Joseph


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Price, M. P.
White, H. G.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Pybus, Percy John
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Leach, W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Raynes, W. R.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Richards, R.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lees, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lindley, Fred W.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Ritson, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Logan, David Gilbert
Romeril, H. G.
Winterton, G. E. (Lelcester, Loughb'gh)


Longbottom, A. W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wise, E. F.


Longden, F.
Rowson, Guy
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lunn, William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)



Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sanders, W. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McElwee, A.
Sawyer, G. F.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


McEntee, V. L.
Scurr, John



McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sexton, Sir James

It being after Half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 4th June, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to

be concluded at Half-past Ten of the. Clock at this day's Sitting,

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 227.

Division No. 282.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Arnott, John
Batey, Joseph


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Aske, Sir Robert
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Attlee, Clement Richard
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Ayles, Walter
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Benson, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)


Ammon, Charles George
Barnes, Alfred John
Birkett, W. Norman


Angell, Sir Norman
Barr, James
Bowen, J. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Broad, Francis Alfred
Isaacs, George
Pole, Major D. G.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jenkins, Sir William
Potts, John S.


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Price, M. P.


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pybus, Percy John


Brooke, W.
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Brothers, M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Reynes, W. R.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Richards, R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Burgess, F. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Ritson, J.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Romeril, H. G.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Kinley, J.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Knight, Holford
Rowson, Guy


Cameron, A. G.
Lang, Gordon
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sanders, W. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Sawyer, G. F.


Chater, Daniel
Lawrence, Susan
Scurr, John


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sexton, Sir James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Leach, W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Compton, Joseph
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cove, William G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sherwood, G. H.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lees, J.
Shield, George William


Daggar, George
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dallas, George
Lindley, Fred W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Simmons, C. J.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sinkinson, George


Day, Harry
Longden, F.
Sitch, Charles H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Dukes, C.
Lunn, William
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Duncan, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Ede, James Chuter
McElwee, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Edge, Sir William
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Edmunds, J. E.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McKinlay, A.
Sorensen, R.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacLaren, Andrew
Stamford, Thomas W.


Egan, W. H.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Stephen, Campbell


Elmley, Viscount
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Strauss, G. R.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sullivan, J.


Freeman, Peter
McShane, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Mansfield, W.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
March, S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gibbins, Joseph
Marcus, M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gibson, H. M. (Lance. Mossley)
Marley, J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Gill, T. H.
Marshall, Fred
Tillett, Ben


Gillett, George M.
Mathers, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Glassey, A. E.
Matters, L. W.
Tout, W. J.


Gossling, A. G.
Maxton, James
Townend, A. E.


Gould, F.
Messer, Fred
Vaughan, David


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Middleton, G.
Viant, S. P.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mills, J. E.
Walkden, A. G.


Gray, Milner
Milner, Major J.
Walker, J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Montague, Frederick
Wallace, H. W.


Grenfell, D. H. (Glamorgan)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Watkins, F. C.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W)
Morley, Ralph
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Groves, Thomas E.
Morrison, Robert C, (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mort, D. L.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Muff, G.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Muggeridge, H. T.
West, F. R.


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Murnin, Hugh
Westwood, Joseph


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Nathan, Major H. L.
White, H. G.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Harris, Percy A.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Haycock, A. W.
Oldfield, J. R.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Herriotts, J.
Palin, John Henry
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hicks, Ernest George
Paling, Wilfrid
Wise, E. F.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palmer, E. T.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hoffman, P. C.
Perry, S. F.



Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hopkin, Daniel
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
England, Colonel A.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cliva


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Muirhead, A. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ferguson, Sir John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fermoy, Lord
O'Connor, T. J.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fielden, E. B.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Astor, Viscountess
Fison, F. G. Clavering
O'Neill, Sir H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Ford, Sir P. J.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Atkinson, C.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Power, Sir John Cecil


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Beaumont, M. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Ramsbotham, H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Remer, John R.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'yl


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ross, Ronald D.


Boyce, Leslie
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Salmon, Major I.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hammersley, S. S.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hanbury, C.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Honnon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Savery, S. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Buckingham, Sir H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Simms, Major-General J.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst.)


Butler, R. A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Campbell, E. T.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smithers, Waldron


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerset, Thomas


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Chapman, Sir S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Christie, J. A.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thompson, Luke


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby. High Peak)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lelghton, Major B. E. P.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colman, N. C. D.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Colville, Major D. J.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Cooper, A. Duff
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godlrey
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Wayland, Sir William A.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lymington, Viscount
Wells, Sydney R.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Withers, Sir John James


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Marjorlbanks, Edward
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Womersley, W. J.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Meller, R. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)



Dixey, A. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress,
and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Major ELLIOT: On a Motion of this kind it would be quite out of order to discuss the action of the House in passing the Guillotine Resolution or the attitude of the Chair, which is only the servant of the House, but it is necessary to realise that for the last 10 minutes the Government have been raking money out of the taxpayers' pocket at the rate of £1,000,000 a minute. [Interruption.] I make no complaint of that. It is no doubt right for the Government to bring forward whatever Motion they please. The Government supporters will have to answer for their action, not to us, but to the country. [Interruption.] But the action of the Government in submitting this Motion to the House is one which deserves the most unshrinkable condemnation in every quarter—[Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is that I report Progress and ask leave to sit again, and the hon. and gallant Member must show why I should not report Progress.

Major ELLIOT: It is difficult within the drastic limitations which the majority has imposed upon the minority to give adequate reasons why we should not report Progress, but I should have thought that the proceedings of the last few minutes were a sufficient answer. The Government have shown the most arrogant contempt of a minority ever shown, and an overwhelming class prejudice. The Amendment we were proposing to put before the Committee, if an opportunity had been afforded us, was to call attention to the case of the professional man. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss any Amendment on the Motion to report Progress, and it is my duty to put the Question.

Major ELLIOT: Of course, Sir Robert, we realise that, and we want the country to realise it also. We want the country to realise that the House of Commons is muzzled by a Motion submitted by the party who have always claimed to be the democratic party, who have always claimed to be the guardian of free debate and by those who were loudest in their condemnation when any Motion to limit debate was brought forward by the Conservative party when they were in office.
I wish to draw the attention of the country also to the fact that we are asked now to report Progress, and to carry this Motion with the assistance and the connivance and the active support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and his friends. It is the action of the Darwen— [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member up to now has not given any reason for not reporting Progress.

Major ELLIOT: I bow to your Ruling without a moment's hesitation, and had it not been for it I should certainly have considered that I was advancing such reasons. But it is certainly not my desire to contravene your Ruling or the Rules of the House. I ask you whether we should be in order in discussing Clause 7 of the Bill at this point? Surely the proceedings have shown that the Bill requires more discussion and consideration that it is likely to get under present conditions? There is still three-quarters of an hour left of Parliamentary time. Are we to pass now from discussion of a Bill which has had to be guillotined in so stringent a fashion? Should we be within our rights in discussing whether or not we should report Progress or whether we should now proceed to discuss further Clauses of the Bill? I quite realise that it would be out of order for us to discuss the merits of Clause 7, owing to the Resolution passed by the House, but it seems to me that we are fully within our rights in discussing whether we should now—[Interrupttion.] The Chairman of Committees has a duty not merely to the Government side of the Committee but to minorities. We can well understand that hon. Members opposite are ashamed of their action. As a point of Order, I ask whether we are in order in declining, as an Opposition, to part with the Bill now, and whether we are in order in continuing the discussion of the Bill and not reporting Progress here and now?

The CHAIRMAN: If the Committee carries the Motion that I do not report Progress, the Debate can be carried on.

Major ELLIOT: If we can continue till Eleven, surely it is not beyond the Rules to continue till 11.30?

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: On a point of Order. The Guillotine which the Government have imposed upon us merely says that the Guillotine shall fall at a certain time. If we can prevent the Motion being carried, cannot we discuss Clause 7 or Clause 8 all night?

The CHAIRMAN: Provided the Motion if got rid of, I will give a decision.

Major ELLIOT: Then I understand, Sir Robert, that your Ruling is that the discussion on the Bill can proceed indefinitely, this being exempted Business, and not subject to the Eleven o'clock Rule?

The CHAIRMAN: The Motion is, "That I do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." We must dispose of that first.

Major ELLIOT: Whether the Motion is carried or not, I understand the discussion on the Bill can then proceed?

The CHAIRMAN: The procedure is in accordance with that governing the sittings of the House.

Major ELLIOT: Let me be accurate on this point. [Interruption.] Some day it will be the turn of hon. Members opposite to be in Opposition. If discussion follows upon the Motion to report Progress, and if that Motion is carried, and we report Progress, does that mean the discussion can then take place upon other topics or upon the Bill? What exactly is the position?

The CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That I do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." If that Motion is carried, I shall leave the Chair and report to Mr. Speaker.

Major ELLIOT: Then it is the desire of the Opposition, obviously, that that Motion should not be carried, and it is the right of the Opposition to bring forward arguments to show why it should not be carried. I have put forward, to the best of my ability, arguments to show why it is a Parliamentary scandal that the Motion should be put and carried now with public business in such a condition that the Government can pass the whole of a year's Budget through the Committee stage in one day. Protests have come from other sections of the House beside this section.
[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite who are so desirous of stifling discussion, though they may succeed in stopping it in this House, will not succeed in stopping it in the country. There are other sections who also wish to make a protest to-night. For that reason, and that reason only, I resume my seat now although there are arguments which would be quite sufficient to take up the rest of the time available to the House, I am not putting them because, unlike hon. Members opposite, we wish to give other sections of the House a chance of speaking.

Mr. E. BROWN: The first argument I will adduce against the Motion to report Progress is that, like you, Sir, the night is young. Before the night gets older, we ought to have more time than is allotted to us under the Guillotine to discuss future Clauses. The fact is that, though we cannot go back on what has been decided, we can take advantage of what has happened, namely, there being no Government Amendments outstand-at 10.30, so that the House has a period of time in addition to that allotted under the Guillotine which it can easily give to discussing the great and major issues which we are also to discuss to-morrow. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to realise that what we have just seen is one of the worst examples of the use of the Guillotine ever seen in the House of Commons. Anyone who has even a cursory acquaintance with the Amendments which have been put down to these Clauses, knows that more time ought to be given to the discussion of the Clauses. Therefore, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Motion and to give the Committee the full use of every moment available for the discussion of the fundamental issues wrapped up in Clauses 7 and 8. I oppose the Motion because we ought to have not merely hours more, but days more in which to discuss these matters.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: There are many reasons for opposing this Motion though there are one or two reasons why it might be advisable to report Progress at this juncture. [Interruption.] I shall come to those reasons later. It is quite clear that on a very important Measure the Government have moved to report Progress although 20 minutes of Parliamentary time were still available. During
those 20 minutes we could have discussed at least one of the Amendments on Clause 7, many of which will, inevitably, and in the nature of things, go without any discussion to-morrow. There are many Amendments to this Clause dealing with all sorts of matters and the 20 minutes might have been devoted, for instance, to discussing the question of the co-operative funds invested in land. That time might have been devoted to some other important subject which will probably be left undiscussed on a future day—

Sir JAMES SEXTON: On a point of Order. May I ask what we have done to deserve this?

Mr. WILLIAMS: At any rate, some people have been knighted for listening to me. There are other reasons why we ought not to report Progress. It is quite clear that, at some time of the day, before we can honestly say that we are reporting Progress—

Mr. EDE: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Guillotine Motion includes this Clause:
On an allotted day, no dilatory Motion with respect to those proceedings, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that that Motion refers to the allotted business on that particular day. The allotted business of this day was finished at 10.30 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: On a point of Order. I am wanting your Ruling arising out of what the hon. Gentleman has just read from the Order governing the Guillotine. The last paragraph of it says:
Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of."

I want to ask whether it is in order not only to discuss the Motion to report Progress now, but also, if it is negatived,
to carry on, as the Finance Bill is exempted business, with Clauses 7 and S, because the Guillotine Motion says that the limit is only set for the time at which the proceedings on Clauses 7 and 8 have to come to an end, and nothing is said about when they may start.

The CHAIRMAN: The Motion now before the House does not refer to any business set down for this day. The point before the House is the Motion that I should report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I quite appreciate that we cannot go back on anything that the House has settled, but in order to make the Motion to report Progress one which we can discuss, we should be able to take into account whether, if it is negatived, we may or may not go on to the next Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: I have indicated already that if this Motion is carried, I shall report to the Speaker.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Have you not already ruled that if this Motion to report Progress is rejected by the House, the House will then be at liberty to go on discussing Clause 7?

The CHAIRMAN: I have ruled that, if the Motion before the Committee is rejected, we can go on.

Mr. TOWNEND: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that the business before the House with respect to the Finance Bill has now been completed, does it not follow that the Motion to report Progress has no relation to the Finance Bill, and should be put at 11 o'clock?

The CHAIRMAN: The Motion to report Progress does not relate to the business that came to an end at 10.30. That business was disposed of at 10.30. There was a lapse of time between then and 11 o'clock, and if this Motion is defeated, we can go on, as it is exempted business.

Mr. EDMUNDS: On a point of Order. In the Resolution allotting the time for the Finance Bill, Clauses 1 and 2, and Clauses 3 to 6 are allotted to the first day, and Clauses 7 and 8 to the second day. Does the second allotted day start this evening if the Motion before the House is rejected?

The CHAIRMAN: If the Committee finish with the business before the time laid down, they can proceed with the next Clause.

Mr. MARLEY: In view of the fact that the business on the Order Paper for the day finished automatically at 10.30, and the business now, namely, whether you shall report Progress or not is not exempted business, does not that come under the Standing Order which says that the House shall stand adjourned at Eleven o'Clock?

The CHAIRMAN: The Motion before the House is that I shall report Progress, and that has relation to the Finance Bill.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I was endeavouring to explain when I was interrupted that we could well use the time which we have now at our disposal to discuss the important financial part of the Bill which comes after Clause 6. [HON. MEMBEES: "Divide!"] Unless the Government can produce some good reason why—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I think that it is essential that every minute of the time of this House—

Mr. MACLEAN: I wish to ask for your Ruling on this point. You have stated that in the event of this Motion being defeated we could then go on, as this is exempted business. The Guillotine Motion puts an end to the first day's progress on the Bill. It states explicitly that the first day's business ends at 10.30, and that the second day's business will be occupied with Clauses 7 and 8. I wish to ask whether, in the event of this Motion being defeated, any other business can be brought forward, and if so, what business other than the business we have discussed?

Mr. E. BROWN: Is it not a fact that the Guillotine Resolution did not decide what the hon. Member has said, but decided as to the compartments of the Bill on which discussion should end at 10.30?

The CHAIRMAN: That is what I have said to the Committee several times. The Guillotine Resolution determines the time at which discussion on certain portions of the Bill will come to an end, but that does not prevent the Committee from proceeding with the Finance Bill. The
Finance Bill is exempted business, and no provision has been made in relation to that.

Mr. MACLEAN: I wish to draw attention to the fact that the House has already decided that the business on the second allotted day will be the discussion of Clauses 7 and 8. If this Motion is defeated that does not mean the defeat of the previous Resolution of the House to take Clauses 7 and 8 upon the second allotted day. If this Resolution were defeated I submit that we could not take Clause 7 to-night, and would require, under the decision of the House, to wait until to-morrow.

The CHAIRMAN: Certain times were fixed at which to bring to an end discussions on particular sections of the Bill. At those times the Question is put upon the business before the Committee. Should we get to the end of a particular section before the time fixed, we could go on to the next section. That is my Ruling.

Mr. MACLEAN: With all due deference to your Ruling I wish to say that the House has already taken a decision upon this matter, and that that decision cannot be overruled in Committee or by any Chairman except with the consent of the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I wish to say, with all due respect, that the Chairman, as well as other Members of the Committee, is bound by the decisions of the House. The Standing Orders are the decisions of the House, which the Chairman administers, and the decision of the House has already been taken as to what business is to be considered upon the second allotted day. If this Motion were defeated the second allotted day's business would still be commencing with Clause 7, and that could not be discussed to-night. I respectfully ask if you can quote any precedent for this particular Ruling.

Mr. E. BROWN: Further to that point of Order. Is it not clear that a great part of the procedure of the House has nothing to do with decisions of the House but with decisions of the Chair?

The CHAIRMAN: The Chairman has to interpret what has been decided by the House. The last portion of the Guillotine Resolution reads:
Nothing in this Order shall prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.
The business to be concluded to-day was disposed of and the continuance of the business is "other business.

Mr. MACLEAN: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: I have given my decision, and the Committee must accept it.

Mr. MACLEAN: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Name.

The CHAIRMAN: I have given my Ruling and that is the end of it.

Sir PATRICK FORD: On a point of Order. When you have stated your definite Ruling time, on a point of Order, is it in order to go back upon that Ruling? Surely that is a waste of the time of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order—

HON. MEMBERS: Name!

The CHAIRMAN: It must be a different point of Order from the last one which was put by the hon. Member.

Mr. MACLEAN: My point of Order is on your Ruling, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the portion of the Guillotine Motion which you quoted against me. It says:
Nothing in this Order shall prevent any other business being proceeded with.
When a particular Measure which has been before the House has passed its allotted period this House then proceeds to "other business." The other business is Orders Nos. 2, 3, and 4 on the Order Paper. I submit that that is the meaning that was intended when this particular Guillotine Motion was granted and that is the interpretation which should be placed upon it.

The CHAIRMAN: I interpret it as meaning any other business apart from the business that was to be finished at 10.30. This in exempted business.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I apologise most sincerely if my remarks may seem disconnected, but my only wish is to try to persuade the Government to use this time to give us a further chance of discussing this important Measure, and I would ask the Government to meet us on that point.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 166.

Division No. 283.]
AYES.
[11.22 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brooke, W.
Edge, Sir William


Adamson, W. M. (Staff Cannock)
Brothers, M.
Edmunds, J. E.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Egan, W. H.


Alpass, J. H.
Buchanan, G.
Elmley, Viscount


Ammon, Charles George
Burgess, F. G.
Freeman, Peter


Angell, Sir Norman
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Arnott, John
Calne, Hall-, Derwent
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Aske, Sir Robert
Cameron, A. G.
Gibbins, Joseph


Ayles, Walter
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Charleton, H. C.
Gill, T. H.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Chater, Daniel
Gillett, George M.


Barnes, Alfred John
Cluse, W. S.
Glassey, A. E.


Barr, James
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gossling, A. G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Compton, Joseph
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Benson, G.
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Gray, Milner


Bevan, Aneul (Ebbw Vale)
Daggar, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Birkett, W. Norman
Dallas, George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bowen, J. W.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grundy, Thomas W.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Dukes, C.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Bromfield, William
Duncan, Charles
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Bromley, J.
Ede, James Chuter
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mansfield, W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Marcus, M.
Shield, George William


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Marley, J.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Haycock, A. W.
Marshall, Fred
Shillaker, J. F.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Mathers, George
Simmons, C. J.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Matters, L. W.
Sinkinson, George


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Maxton, James
Sitch, Charles H.


Hicks, Ernest George
Messer, Fred
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Middleton, G.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mills, J. E.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Hoffman, P. C.
Milner, Major J.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hollins, A.
Montague, Frederick
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hopkin, Daniel
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Morley, Ralph
Sorensen, R.


Isaacs, George
Morrison, Rt. Hon. K. (Hackney, S.)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Jenkins, Sir William
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stephen, Campbell


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Mort, D. L.
Strauss, G. R.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Muff, G.
Sullivan, J.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Murnin, Hugh
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Naylor, T. E.
Tillett, Ben


Kelly, W. T.
Oldfield, J. R.
Tinker, John Joseph


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Tout, W. J.


Knight, Holford
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Townend, A. E.


Lang, Gordon
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Vaughan, David


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Palin, John Henry
Viant, S. P.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Paling, Wilfrid
Walkden, A. G.


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Palmer, E. T.
Walker, J.


Lawrence, Susan
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wallace, H. W.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Watkins, F. C.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Leach, W.
Pole, Major D. G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Potts, John S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Price, M. P.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lees, J.
Pybus, Percy John
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
West, F. R.


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rathbone, Eleanor
Westwood, Joseph


Logan, David Gilbert
Raynes, W. R.
White, H. G.


Longbottom, A. W.
Richards, R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Longden, F.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ritson, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lunn, William
Romeril, H. G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


McElwee, A.
Rowson, Guy
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


McEntee, V. L.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


McKinlay, A.
Sanders, W. S.
Wise, E. F.


MacLaren, Andrew
Scurr, John
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sexton, Sir James
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)



McShane, John James
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Camphell, E. T.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Albery, Irving James
Carver, Major W. H.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Ferguson, Sir John


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fermoy, Lord


Atholl, Duchess of
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Fielden E. B.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fison, F. G. Clavering


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Ford, Sir P. I.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Balniel, Lord
Christie, J. A.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Beaumont, M. W
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Belterton, Sir Henry B.
Colman, N. C. D.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Colville, Major D. J.
Gower, Sir Robert


Blrchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cooper, A. Duff
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Boyce, Leslie
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Briscoe, Richard George
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hammersley, S. S.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hanbury, C.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Nawb'y)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Haslam, Henry C.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Butler, R. A.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
England, Colonel A.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.




Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hurd, Percy A.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Inskip, Sir Thomas
Penny, Sir George
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Lambert, Ht. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Ramsbotham, H.
Thompson, Luke


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Thomson, Sir F.


Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Remer, John R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lelghton, Major B. E. P.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Ross, Ronald D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Marjorlbanks, Edward
Savery, S. S.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Meller, R. J.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Womersley, W. J.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dfne, C.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Smithers, Waldron
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Somerset, Thomas
Captain Wallace and Captain Margesson.


O'Connor, T. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 165.

Division No. 284.]
AYES.
[11.33 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dukes, C.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Duncan, Charles
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ede, James Chuter
Kelly, W. T.


Aitchlson, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Edge, Sir William
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Edmunds, J. E.
Knight, Holford


Alpass, J. H.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lang, Gordon


Ammon, Charles George
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Angell, Sir Norman
Egan, W. H.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Arnott, John
Elmley, Viscount
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Aske, Sir Robert
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lawrence, Susan


Ayles, Walter
Freeman, Peter
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leach, W.


Barnes, Alfred John
Gibbins, Joseph
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Barr, James
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gill, T. H.
Lees, J.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gillett, George M.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Benson, G.
Glassey, A. E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gossling, A. Q.
Logan, David Gilbert


Birkett, W. Norman
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Longbottom, A. W.


Bowen, J. W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cant.)
Longden, F.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gray, Milner
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Lunn, William


Brockway, A. Fenner
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Bromfield, William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R, (Seaham)


Bromley, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McElwee, A.


Brooke, W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McEntee, V. L.


Brothers, M.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
McKinlay, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J, (South Ayrshire)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
MacLaren, Andrew


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Buchanan, G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Burgess, F. G.
Haycock, A. W.
McShane, John James


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)
Mansfield, W.


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marcus, M.


Cameron, A. G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Marley, J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hicks, Ernest George
Marshall, Fred


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mathers, George


Chater, Daniel
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Matters, L. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Hoffman, P. C.
Maxton, James


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hollins, A.
Messer, Fred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hopkin, Daniel
Middleton, G.


Compton, Joseph
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Mills, J. E.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Isaacs, George
Milner, Major J.


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Montague, Frederick


Dallas, George
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Morley, Ralph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Mort, D. L.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Townend, A. E.


Muff, G.
Sanders, W. S.
Vaughan, David


Muggeridge, H. T.
Scurr, John
Viant, S. P.


Wurnin, Hugh
Sexton, Sir James
Walkden, A. G.


Nathan, Major H. L.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Walker, J.


Naylor, T. E.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wallace, H. W.


Oldfield, J. R.
Sherwood, G. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shield, George William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Shillaker, J. F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Palin, John Henry
Simmons, C. J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Paling, Wilfrid
Sinkinson, George
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Palmer, E. T.
Sitch, Charles H.
West, F. R.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Westwood, Joseph


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
White, H. G.


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Potts, John S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Price, M. P.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Pybus, Percy John
Sorensen, R.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Raynes, W. R.
Strauss, G. R.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Richards, R.
Sullivan, J.
Wise, E. F.


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Sutton, J. E.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Ritson, J.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Romeril, H. G.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)



Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Tillett, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rowson, Guy
Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Tout, W. J.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Marjoribanks, Edward


Albery, Irving James
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Melier, R. J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Eden, Captain Anthuny
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
England, Colonel A.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Ferguson, Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Balniel, Lord
Fermoy, Lord
O'Connor, T. J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fielden, E. B.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Beaumont, M. W.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Penny, Sir George


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Ramsbotham, H.


Boyce, Leslie
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Brass, Captain Sir William
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Briscoe, Richard George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Renter, John R.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hammersley, S. S.
Ross, Ronald D.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hanbury, C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butler, R. A.
Harvey, Mejor S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Butt, Sir Alfred
Haslam, Henry C.
Savery, S. S.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Campbell, E. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Carver, Major W. H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Smithers, Waldron


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Inksip, Sir Thomas
Somerset, Thomas


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Christie, J. A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Colville, Major D. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooper, A. Duff
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lelghton, Major B. E. P.
Thompson, Luke


Cranborne, Viscount
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Thomson, Sir F.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Locker-Lampion, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Titchfield, Major the Marques of


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warrender, Sir Victor




Wayland, Sir William A.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount



Wells, Sydney R.
Womersley, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, Charles (Davon, Torquay)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.


Wilton, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton



Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a Quarter before Twelve o'Clock.